offshore wind energy development site assessment and
TRANSCRIPT
__________________ OCS Study BOEM 2013-0010
Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization: Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs www.boem.gov
OCS Study BOEM 2013-0010
Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization: Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience
Authors Christopher G. Rein A. Scott Lundin Stephanie J. K. Wilson Elana Kimbrell Prepared under BOEM Contract M12PD00018 by ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, RI 02915 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Herndon Office of Renewable Energy Programs August 2013 Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC under Task Order Number M12PD00018
iii
DISCLAIMER This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and ESS Group, Inc. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with BOEM editorial standards.
REPORT AVAILABILITY This report is available for downloaded from the boem.gov website through the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS). You may obtain a CD or paper copy of this report from BOEM or the National Technical Information Service from the following addresses: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Ocean Energy Management National Technical Information Service Office of Renewable Energy Programs 5285 Port Royal Road 381 Elden Street Springfield, Virginia 22161 Herndon, VA 20170 Phone: (703) 605-6040 Fax: (703) 605-6900
Email: [email protected]
CITATION
Rein C.G., Lundin, A.S., Wilson, S.J.K., Kimbrell, E. 2013. Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization: Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-0010. [273] pp.
Cover Photograph Credit: © Andy Dingley (Own Work) / CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licesnses/by-sa/3.0)
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES ......................4
1.1 Overview of the Workshop .............................................................................................4 1.2 Welcome and Opening Remarks .....................................................................................5 1.3 Overview of Workshop Purpose and Goals ....................................................................6 1.4 Overview of European Offshore Wind Energy Regulatory Framework and Current
Status ...............................................................................................................................6 1.5 Overview of U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Regulatory Framework and Current Status ..7
2.0 AVIAN RESOURCES BREAKOUT SESSION ...................................................................9
2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................9 2.1.2 Participants .........................................................................................................9
2.2 European Experience and Hindsight .............................................................................10 2.2.1 What would Europeans do differently? ...........................................................11 2.2.2 Have data collection priorities changed over time? .........................................11 2.2.3 How do you measure the success of mitigation and which mitigation
strategies have proven to be effective? ............................................................12 2.3 European Planning and Siting Criteria ..........................................................................12
2.3.1 How do Europeans consider avian resources in the planning process? ...........12 2.3.2 Which studies have been the most useful? ......................................................13
2.4 European Monitoring ....................................................................................................14 2.4.1 What types of pre- and post-construction studies have been most
informative? .....................................................................................................14 2.4.2 What benefits have been obtained from pre- and post-construction
monitoring? ......................................................................................................15 2.5 European Data and Data Collection Considerations .....................................................15
2.5.1 Which data sets have been the key to answering regulatory and conservation biology related questions? ................................................................................15
2.5.2 How are data collection methods standardized and do European developers share data they have collected? ........................................................................16
2.5.3 How are data used at larger scales and to understand cumulative effects? .....16 2.6 Consolidation of Key Points from the Avian Breakout Sessions ..................................16
3.0 BENTHIC HABITAT BREAKOUT SESSION ..................................................................18
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................18 3.1.1 Background ......................................................................................................18 3.1.2 Participants .......................................................................................................19 3.1.3 Overview of European Perspective ..................................................................20
vi
3.2 Benthic Habitat Classification Systems ........................................................................21 3.3 Pre-Construction Surveys ..............................................................................................22 3.4 Post-Construction Monitoring .......................................................................................25 3.5 Predictive Modeling ......................................................................................................26 3.6 Habitat Vulnerability Indices ........................................................................................27 3.7 Additional Discussion Items .........................................................................................27 3.8 Summary of Benthic Habitat Session ............................................................................29 3.9 References .....................................................................................................................30
4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE BREAKOUT SESSION .........................................32
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................32 4.1.1 Background ......................................................................................................32 4.1.2 Participants .......................................................................................................33
4.2 Archaeological Resources in the European Planning Process ......................................33 4.3 European Cultural Resource Mitigation Strategies .......................................................35 4.4 Identification of Submerged Archaeological Sites in Europe .......................................35
4.4.1 Archaeological Site Identification ...................................................................35 4.4.2 These systems are already in common use in Denmark and Germany ............38
4.5 Development of Standards for Direct Sampling ...........................................................39 4.6 Summary of Archaeological Resource Session .............................................................40 4.7 References .....................................................................................................................41
5.0 CLOSING PLENARY SESSION OVERVIEW .................................................................44
5.1 Cumulative Use Evaluation Model ...............................................................................44 5.2 Group Discussion and Report-Outs ...............................................................................45 5.3 Concluding Remarks .....................................................................................................47
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A AGENDA APPENDIX B PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX C PLENARY PRESENTATIONS APPENDIX D AVIAN BREAKOUT SESSION PRESENTATIONS APPENDIX E BENTHIC BREAKOUT SESSION PRESENTATIONS APPENDIX F ARCHAEOLOGY BREAKOUT SESSION
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) hosted this workshop to engage with
European scientists and regulators who have experience in offshore wind energy projects. The goal of this workshop was for BOEM to learn from the European experience with offshore wind development about the types of information that should be gathered during site assessment and characterization activities that best informs decisions about the siting of offshore wind facilities and potential mitigation measures. Three areas of particular interest were the focus of this workshop – birds, benthic habitats, and archaeology. These areas were selected because of the timeliness with respect to the preparation and release of BOEM guidelines for information collection. While the current focus is on pre-construction information collection, BOEM recognizes that this information is also the foundation for post-construction impact evaluation.
BOEM sought to learn from the European experience in order to maximize the potential
success of U.S.-based offshore renewable energy. Participation during the workshop of individuals representing five of the six European countries with operating offshore wind energy facilities enabled BOEM to compare and contrast strategies for site assessment activities and managing the stewardship of environmental and archaeological resources on the OCS. The workshop was held on February 26-28, 2013 at the Crowne Plaza in Herndon, Virginia. The workshop as attended by approximately 110 persons, including the 17 invited European experts who were at the core the technical subject breakout sessions. The workshop started with a plenary session for all attendees during which some key BOEM managers welcomed the participants and provided an overview of BOEM’s goals for the workshop. The first morning’s plenary session was followed by a day and a half of detailed technical discussion in the three separate subject matter breakout sessions: avian, benthic habitats, and archaeological resources. The technical breakout sessions each followed a general format where invited European experts discussed a list of questions that had been developed by BOEM technical staff prior to the workshop. As a result of the different technical subject topics and the diversity among the scientists, regulators and other participants in the sessions, each of the individual breakout sessions progressed in somewhat different fashion.
BOEM’s goal for the third morning of the workshop was to use a model that is being
developed to evaluate the wide array of factors and to assess methods of bringing together the three different topical areas into a cohesive method for communicating decisions regarding offshore wind siting. After a presentation about the model, the breakout groups discussed how their particular resource of interest could be incorporated in the model and the challenges that arise.
Within the avian break out session, the most widely agreed upon point between the European
experts was the need for robust survey designs that clearly define the conditions under which surveys will be carried out and also those conditions that are unsuitable for avian surveys. Once surveys have been completed the results should be made available to insure consistency in the quality of data and allow better functionality for review and conclusions, publication of data collection methods, protocols, and results should be required. There was also significant general agreement that both pre- and post-construction surveys should be tightly focused on answering specific questions about effects of wind farms by comparison of pre- and post-construction data.
2
In essence, no preconstruction survey should be undertaken without knowing what is desired to be known from the post-construction survey and how the post-construction survey will be conducted. Experience has shown the Europeans that pre-construction surveys did not provide the right data for comparisons with post-construction information. Furthermore, there was also strong general agreement that surveys must include a large enough area around a wind farm, not just the actual proposed project footprint because birds are often clumped and may use different areas within the vicinity of the wind farm from year-to-year.
From the benthic habitat break out session, the following suggestions were made relative to
guiding the collection and assessment of benthic data during the offshore wind farm development process:
• Need to accept some level of impact. Local effect likely, but may not be meaningful at the regional scale. Focus effort to understand/evaluate ecosystem service.
• If you want to detect a change, define a change to monitor for, don’t just monitor. Need to find a cause and effect within a wind farm area to understand/monitor.
• If you don’t have enough information to establish impact thresholds, take an adaptive management approach. Adapt policy/regulations as you learn more. If regulations are too stringent, you may end up monitoring for illogical parameters.
• Develop an inventory of knowledge gaps and design monitoring program to fill in gaps. Possibly coordinate monitoring efforts across individual developers to ensure robust monitoring at the proper scale.
Participants in the marine archaeology sessions agreed that the discussion in this session was tremendously beneficial for both the Americans and the Europeans. It is strongly recommended that this line of communication be maintained for the benefit of both groups. The Europeans acknowledged that their industry has developed numerous conventions that are not always evident, but that a forum such as this forces reflection and consideration of better alternatives. Similarly, the Americans acknowledged that qualified researchers and reviewers (technical experts) are very limited in this country and that collaboration with European counterparts will be a tremendously valuable strategy for managing this resource limitation until the US offshore renewable energy industry becomes more mature. Marine archaeology is highly inter-disciplinary and requires a high degree of technical specialty. Based on the discussion, it is evident that the remote sensing requirements are well established but that the physical sampling required to identify human activity is the biggest challenge facing marine archaeologists. Definitive indicators of human activity are required to differentiate paleolandforms from submerged archaeological sites. Finally, good archaeology and good development are not contradictions. BOEM and developers working together forms a starting point. Combining information from multiple surveys to feed common goals will help historic property identification surveys become more efficient and minimize the perception of burden.
The workshop provided an opportunity for BOEM and other Federal agencies, as well as the
interested public, to discuss key questions about offshore wind development with scientists and regulators from Europe, who have direct experience. The format of the workshop allowed for an interactive opportunity to fully discuss, beyond the initial questions posed, the lessons learned from the experience of European colleagues in siting, permitting, developing, and operating offshore wind energy projects. While much was learned, the most important lesson was that we
3
must maintain the lines of communication and continue to learn from each other as wind development progresses into new areas, with new technologies.
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) hosted this workshop to engage with
European scientists and regulators who have experience in offshore wind energy projects. The goal of this workshop was for BOEM to further inform the development of site assessment and characterization guidelines that provide useful information for decision making. BOEM wanted to learn from the European experience with offshore wind development about the types of information that should be gathered during site assessment and characterization activities that best informs decisions about the siting of offshore wind facilities and potential impact mitigation measures. Three areas of particular interest were the focus of this workshop – birds, benthic habitats, and archaeology. These areas were selected because of the timeliness with respect to the preparation and release of BOEM guidelines for information collection. While the current focus is on pre-construction information collection, BOEM recognizes that this information is also the foundation for post-construction impact evaluation.
Wind energy is the technology closest to commercial production status of any form of
offshore renewable energy. Development of wind energy facilities requires assessments of proposed sites, including potential conflicts with other human uses, geological and geophysical characteristics, archaeological resources, and use by biological resources (e.g. birds, bats, fish, marine mammals, turtles). BOEM is in the process of collecting foundational information about these topics and has proposed initial guidelines for industry to use in collecting site specific information. European countries already have several commercial facilities in operation, and BOEM organized and held this workshop to learn from the progress that the Europeans have made.
This workshop focused on the development of offshore wind energy projects on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The regulations that apply to these activities require the offshore wind industry to submit information as part of their site assessment, general activities, or construction and operation plan. BOEM has developed guidance to assist industry in the collection of this information and has recognized the benefits of learning from the European experience to inform how these guidelines will be refined.
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP The workshop was held on February 26-28, 2013 at the Crowne Plaza in Herndon, VA near
the location of BOEM’s offices. The workshop was attended by approximately 110 persons, including the 17 invited European experts who were at the core the technical subject breakout sessions. The workshop started with a plenary session for all attendees during which some key BOEM managers welcomed the participants and provided an overview of BOEM’s goals for the workshop. The plenary session also included an overview of the BOEM regulatory program for offshore wind energy development as well as an overview of European framework for offshore wind energy regulation.
Following the opening plenary session, the afternoon began with technical discussions in the
three breakout sessions for avian, benthic and archaeological resources. At this point in the workshop, each technical track proceeded individually to begin discussing issues that BOEM
5
technical leaders for each of the areas had presented to the European experts in preparation for the workshop. The breakout sessions were facilitated by subject area experts from the ESS Group, Inc. ESS also provided experienced technical staff to function as notetakers during the breakout sessions.
While the breakout sessions for avian, benthic and cultural resources were planned to follow
similar formats, in actual execution, each technical session proceeded somewhat differently from one another. Each breakout session had a facilitator, a notetaker, a group of invited experts from Europe and at least one technical expert from BOEM. Scientists and managers from other regulatory agencies and members of the public who had registered for the workshop also participated in each breakout session. There were very noticeable differences in the flow and content of each breakout session. This was a result of both the differences between the three scientific subjects as well as the wide variety of the backgrounds and interests of the participants of each session. This report reflects both the similarities and the differences that were evident in the conduct of the breakout sessions.
Following a day and a half of technical breakout sessions, on the third morning the workshop
resumed in a plenary presentation and discussion. The topic of the final day was a “Cumulative Use Evaluation Model or CUEM. BOEM has been working on the consideration and development of a modeling approach that can handle the wide array of factors that could result in impacts to an ecosystem or a community as a result of offshore renewable energy development actions. During the final session of the workshop one of the CUEM developers provided an overview of how the model was developed, and how the model has been designed to weigh and evaluate factors that make up a cumulative consideration of human actions.
1.2 WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS Ned Farquhar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior, opened the
workshop and thanked the team at the BOEM for initiating and organizing this effort. He noted the attendance of the international experts at the workshop, who provided perspectives from their experience with offshore wind energy. He emphasized that a clean energy future is a high priority for President Obama. The United States is working hard to begin utilizing its offshore wind energy resources to supplement onshore wind energy development. The first permitted offshore wind energy project in the U.S., Cape Wind, is expected to be under construction within about a year.
BOEM is focus on identifying low-conflict areas with high energy production potential by
coordinating through state task forces and holding stakeholder workshops. At present, six Wind Energy Areas have been proposed for further analysis. In those areas, BOEM is transitioning from the planning stage to the leasing stage. With the help of its partner agencies, BOEM is developing protocols for site assessment, characterization, and monitoring. Particularly in Oregon and Hawaii, research and development is underway on floating turbines and other deepwater turbine technologies, as well as wave and tidal energy technology and offshore transmission. He concluded by highlighting the importance of data gathering and sharing, a rigorous science program, and continued relationships with international partners.
6
1.3 OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND GOALS Dr. Mary Boatman, Environmental Studies Chief in BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy
Programs who organized the workshop for BOEM, gave a brief overview of the context and format for the workshop. BOEM recently published guidance for assessing potential impacts to avian, benthic habitat, and cultural/archaeological resources from offshore wind energy development. These are “living documents.” She explained that the workshop was expected to help BOEM refine its guidance about what type of information BOEM should collect, and what it should ask developers to collect on their proposed project sites. However, she indicated the BOEM guidance documents should provide a framework for discussions and not the focus. While there are many resource areas requiring more detailed consideration, the workshop selected three: avian, benthic, and cultural/archaeological resources, in order to allow for substantial discussion on each of them.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CURRENT STATUS
Beverly Walker with BlueWind Consulting LTD gave a presentation on offshore wind energy in Europe to set the stage for discussions at the workshop. She highlighted the following points:
The European Union has established approximately 250 directives (i.e., objectives) related to the environment, including the Renewable Energy Directive, which sets binding targets for percentages of renewable energy by 2020. With seven years remaining before this deadline, there is significant pressure to meet those targets. The European Wind Energy Association identified the five key challenges for offshore wind energy in Europe as: leadership, accountability, and resourcing; constructive development of the supply chain; increasing grid capacity and availability; optimizing governmental input and permitting; and enabling economic and financial feasibility. She also noted the need for improvements in technology, and the way in which efforts to reform and streamline the permitting process have reduced public involvement. It is also a challenge to ensure that regulations are flexible enough to account for the pace of technological development, and ports are able to handle evolving machinery.
Questions and comments from workshop participants included:
What are the penalties for not meeting the EU’s “binding targets”? Ms. Walker explained that to her knowledge these have not been specified, although the targets have the force of regulation.
7
Clarification of several terms was requested: “resourcing” refers to financial funding, and a “heat map” refers to GIS constraint layering (the more constraints, the “hotter” the area).
1.5 OVERVIEW OF U.S. OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CURRENT STATUS
Maureen Bornholdt, Program Manager of the Office of Renewable Energy Programs at BOEM, provided an overview of the government structure for permitting offshore renewable energy in the U.S., and the range of activities underway at BOEM. BOEM is the lead federal agency for offshore wind siting and development. For the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS, from three nautical miles out to 200 nautical miles) marine hydrokinetic energy projects, BOEM is the lead Federal agency for siting and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead Federal agency for operation. Key partners include federal agencies, state governments, tribal governments, and local officials. She emphasized that coordinating with these partners is a high priority for BOEM.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 initiated the creation of BOEM’s Renewable Energy
Program. BOEM has set up 12 State Task Forces to provide input at each phase of BOEM’s process (the phases are: planning, leasing, site assessment, and commercial development and decommissioning). Most areas are in the planning phase, with a few areas transitioning into leasing (descriptions and updates on activities in each state can be found here).
Currently BOEM is continuing to develop its environmental studies program and is
collecting baseline data in coordination with its partners. After they obtain a lease, developers will gather site-specific data for BOEM’s review. BOEM has published guidance on providing survey information on potential impacts to avian, benthic habitat, and cultural/archaeological resources. These documents are primarily oriented toward the Atlantic Coast, and are considered “living” documents that can be modified as the study methods evolve.
BOEM hopes that communication with European experts will continue after this workshop,
potentially on other technical topics such as marine mammals. Ms. Bornholdt addressed some questions and comments from workshop participants: Ms. Bornholdt explained that concerns about climate change and ocean acidification, and the
human health impacts from our current methods of generating electricity are generally addressed through the National Environmental Policy Act process, which considers cumulative impacts, as well as a “No Action Alternative” to address the potential outcomes of not permitting a project.
BOEM considers social and cultural issues in many ways, including through programmatic
agreements with the First Nations and consultation with the state historic preservation offices. Ms. Bornholdt noted that in several cases, BOEM has adjusted its designated Wind Energy Areas in response to input from tribal governments, the fishing community, and others. BOEM’s Task Force meetings have proven to be excellent starting points to learn about and begin addressing
8
these issues. One commenter suggested that BOEM is not engaging sufficiently with the public, since the Task Forces are confined to government representatives, and that this will slow BOEM’s process down later. Ms. Bornholdt responded that BOEM is attempting to be responsive to the level of public involvement desired in different regions. In regions where the public has indicated that it wants to be significantly involved, BOEM has been holding numerous public information sessions.
Ms. Bornholdt summarized how BOEM’s planning areas were based on which states were
ready to engage with them on offshore renewable energy, although analyses and consultations will not be confined to those areas, and that BOEM’s process will take into account ecosystem-based boundaries, not solely political boundaries.
Ms. Bornholdt further explained that the first three nautical miles offshore are designated as
State Waters. Several states began data collection before federal permitting authority for the OCS had been given to BOEM. BOEM is coordinating with state and local efforts to ensure their planning processes are as compatible as possible. There is the possibility that additional areas could be considered later, through another planning process.
Ms. Bornholdt explained that wind energy is a very different technology from oil and gas-
based generation and that a key role for her position is providing education and guidance for BOEM, energy project developers, and the public is the most important element of working in this new industry.
Before closing her remarks, Ms. Bornholdt reviewed how the Regional Ocean Councils were
initiated in July 2010 through an Executive Order from the White House, which created the National Ocean Policy and National Ocean Council. The Regional Ocean Councils are intended to lead marine spatial planning efforts, facilitate partnering between diverse stakeholders, and address cumulative impacts.
9
2.0 AVIAN RESOURCES BREAKOUT SESSION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Background BOEM-permitted undertakings require consultation on potential affects to avian resources
under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A very early step in the process of developing offshore wind energy is to determine whether federally-listed species occur within the project area, either as a resident, or as a migrant. Non-listed avian resources in the project area and the nature and magnitude of the potential impacts must also be identified to inform the NEPA process.
Although an individual project may trigger many concerns, most concerns related to avian
resources tend to extend beyond the relatively small footprint of a single wind facility. These concerns drive BOEM’s information needs to identify areas that are least likely to negatively impact avian resources. To satisfy this information need, BOEM is developing various approaches to increase its understanding about the distribution, abundance, and movement patterns of avian species vulnerable to offshore wind development. BOEM works in close cooperation with the USFWS in evaluating and resolving avian resource issues.
Based on preparatory discussions with the invited European experts prior to the workshop,
BOEM was interested in getting European perspectives on the following issues during the workshop:
1. It seems that pre-construction baseline monitoring is generally too broadscale to properly inform post-construction comparisons. For example, an initial review of “lessons learned” from the UK indicated that much pre-construction data turned out not to be useful when evaluating post-construction impacts.
2. How do you ensure that the avian research area surrounding a proposed project site is large enough to best inform subsequent research?
3. If a wind farm is built and operated in an avian “cold spot” how would one determine if any birds are being affected post-construction?
At the start of the avian breakout session, USFWS asked some additional questions to help
focus the presentations from the European experts: 1. What were the biggest pitfalls in European avian studies? What did not work? 2. Which data were collected that did not prove useful? In other words, what data were
collected, but should not have been? 3. What data was not collected, but should have been?
2.1.2 Participants Participants in the Avian Resource Session included the European experts, BOEM, US DOE,
industry representatives, and consultants. Some of the invited European experts presented slides at the start of the breakout session (see Appendix D). Biographies of the invited European participants are provided in Appendix D to the report and a list of attendees is provided below.
10
European Experts: Philip Bloor, Pelagica (Scotland) Ib Krag Petersen, (Denmark) Thomas Merck, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Germany) Jan Blew, BioConsult SH (Germany) Sjoerd Dirksen, Bureau Waardenburg (Netherlands) BOEM Staff: David Bigger Jim Woehr Mary Boatman David Pereksta David Panzer USFWS Staff: Eric Kershner Melanie Steinkamp Christi Johnson-Hughes Scott Johnston Other U.S. Participants: Darrell Oakley (Facilitator) Chris Rein (Note Taker) Caleb Gordon GeroVella Chris Long Tabor Allison Dale Strickland Kate Williams Jocelyn Brown-Saracino
2.2 EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE AND HINDSIGHT The discussion that took place during the avian breakout sessions was very active and lively.
The session facilitator guided the conversation in a manner that focused on answering the questions that are summarized in Section 2.1.1 above. However, the European experience is varied from country to country and, from time to time while focusing on a particular question, the individual European experts provided a response that covered two or more questions from the list above. As one would expect, in the process of answering the specific questions, each European expert had the opportunity to share certain findings from their individual experience that added support for their opinions about how avian studies should be carried out. Following
11
the discussion of specific questions posed to the European experts (see Sections 2.2 through 2.5), there is a summary and compilation of the key points made by the European experts as they offered their experience and opinions (see Section 2.6).
2.2.1 What would Europeans do differently? Essentially all of the European experts agreed that they would have invested more thought
and effort in developing their initial data collection programs. The Europeans expressed that not enough thought went into what questions would need to be answered during post-construction. In the case of the Netherlands, it was found that the general baseline pre-construction monitoring was insufficient to draw conclusions on potential impacts. A suggestion from the Netherlands was that the government should undertake a more general, larger area, baseline preconstruction surveys of bird distribution, density and migration rather than only the footprint proposed. The government would then be repaid by the energy developer once a project is operating.
Denmark started their environmental investigations in 1999 under a government financed
demonstration program, which lasted for six years. An international expert panel reviewed the program contents during that process, during which the programs were refined. In Denmark, it was shown that it is not always fruitful to require a specific number of surveys. This can lead to surveys being conducted during unfavorable conditions just to satisfy the requirement and poor data - bad data are worse than no data.
In Germany1 there is movement towards not only defining standards and procedures for data
collection, but also for the publication and use of data so that there is better functionality in the process for reviewing data and drawing conclusions as a result of the review. This comprehensive data collection includes surveys of seabird abundance and distribution as well as bird migration and has to be carried out site-specifically by the respective developers. The German approach to assessing collision risk, which is investigating flight paths, altitude, and behavioral activity to facilitate spatial activity analyses, indicates that these data are necessary for all seasons and all weather conditions. It turns out that investigating collision risk must be conducted during unfavorable weather, which is the most difficult time for data collection. The assumption is that collision risk is highest during inclement weather. Collision risk is species-specific and that species-specific avoidance behavior is very important when modeling the risk to a regional population.
2.2.2 Have data collection priorities changed over time? Generally, there is a shift from aerial surveys conducted by human observers to aerial
surveys using aerial digital imagery. In the UK, the data collection methods have generally remained the same as when the first avian data were collected. In recent projects, aerial-based survey techniques are becoming more common than boat-based surveys. For the most recent
1 In Germany most of the offshore development takes place in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) where the
federal authorities have the responsibility. Nevertheless, some offshore wind farms are located in the coastal waters and fall under the responsibility of the federal states (Laender).
12
projects however, the quantity of data collected has grown. Also in the UK a great deal of data has been collected regarding avian flight heights (see SOSS report on the Crown Estate website).
In Europe, the average flight height for the species is used when calculating collision risk
keeping in mind that flight height information is difficult to collect in adverse weather conditions. It was also pointed out that flight height estimates differ between ship-based and land-based observations.
Most of the Europeans concurred that there needs to be more serious consideration of
cumulative impacts. Acceptable levels of impact and “take” have not been settled on among the European nations. There has been some consideration of developing acceptable take numbers for certain species and then apportioning that take between the countries. Progress on this matter is unlikely to be rapid given the number of countries involved and the proximity of wind farms to international borders.
2.2.3 How do you measure the success of mitigation and which mitigation strategies have proven to be effective?
The invited experts did not have much in the way of measurement of successful mitigation. Nearly all of the experts agreed that some kinds of impacts could be mitigated, particularly those related to collisions during migration. It was suggested to use models to predict weather patterns that could lead to mass collisions during migration. In the German North Sea and Baltic Sea, wind farm permissions include a clause, saying that if data indicate potential mass collision events / mass migration events during inclement weather, additional data have to be collected. Also, the approval administration reserves its right to ask for mitigation action, even though neither the criteria nor the mitigation actions (scaring away the birds or shut-down of turbines) are further detailed. Wind farm developers have agreed to shut down during periods of mass migration. However, the Germans are still studying migrations to determine thresholds for curtailment of operations.
In the UK, improvements to avian breeding habitats have been considered to be valid
mitigation for wind farm related avian mortality. Scotland is investigating how displacement effects on species may be offset or mitigated by nearby suitable alternative habitat. The UK primarily addresses mitigation in the preconstruction process. Written plans are developed that describe actions to be taken if avian impacts are documented once a project is operating. If the mitigation is not successful, wind farm operating curtailments may be required.
2.3 EUROPEAN PLANNING AND SITING CRITERIA
2.3.1 How do Europeans consider avian resources in the planning process? For the most part the consideration of avian resources during the planning process has been
evolving toward a more planning intensive approach. European regulators reviewing the first wind farms relied on the developer to gather data and define potential avian impacts. Currently there is a range in the level of government-based planning depending on the country. Danish resource agencies still have not published criteria for avian data collection for new wind farms.
13
In the UK, the process has evolved as a result of a leasing process with the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate must derive revenue from commercial use of the seabed. In the first round of leasing, there was no environmental assessment by the government. However, much was learned during the course of the first two rounds of leasing and the Crown Estate has now developed a comprehensive environmental assessment process for Round 3. The Crown Estate has collected and reviewed data that allowed it to identify zones where wind farms would be allowed. Developers then carry out avian data collection and evaluation programs called zonal assessments to identify appropriate wind farm sites within the Crown Estate-identified zones.
The Germans began their avian resource planning by setting aside areas that would be
unsuitable for wind farms based on available data (e.g. military use, shipping lanes, seabird distributions, distance to coast etc.) and their best professional judgment. Also, it was agreed that offshore wind farms must be at least 12 miles off the coast; however, at least three wind farms are planned within the 12-mile zone. Germany then began to designate protected areas based on some already ongoing government data collection programs in the framework of the EU Bird Directive (which also applied to UK, NL and DK). Following the set aside of protected areas, the German government continued to collect data that would allow identifying areas that could support wind farm development. However, developers quickly outpaced the government and began to propose offshore wind projects well outside of protected areas, largely disregarding the strategic planning areas where the government had collected data.
Currently the Netherlands has implemented a ban on wind farms within 12 miles of the
coast2 and the planning process there has already excluded many areas outside of shipping lanes and oil and gas lease areas. The Dutch government planning efforts are now focused on setting aside areas that will be considered suitable for offshore wind development based on government collection and evaluation of avian data.
Denmark has designated specific areas for future offshore wind farms. These sites have been
selected with considerations of avian resources, though not through a thorough strategic impact assessment.
2.3.2 Which studies have been the most useful? It is generally recognized that the Danes, the Dutch and the Swedes have the broadest array
of published studies addressing avian issues. These studies are acknowledged as the best information and discussion for comparison of pre- and post-construction monitoring data. In Denmark, the program has evolved to include survey methods that allow pre-construction environmental impact assessment data to be suitable for comparison with post-construction data. While the European nations do not have much formal, official agreement on post-construction monitoring, the methods are generally known throughout the industry and most studies are done similarly. It was recommended that workshop participants follow-up with a review of published European reports.
2 Recently, this policy has been re-evaluated and parliament has asked for new studies looking at feasibility of
wind farms within the 12 mile zone.
14
Among the websites that contain published studies, www.nordzeewind.nl was specifically
recommended; In Germany, the following two websites provide some insight mainly in offshore research projects and results:
1. http://www.alpha-ventus.de/index.php?id=80 2. http://rave.iwes.fraunhofer.de/rave/pages/projects.
It is often asked if linking avian and benthic data studies will help to predict avian
distributions. While in theory this would seem to be helpful, these kinds of studies in Europe have been mismatched in geographic scale, limiting the ability to draw conclusions.
The findings of pre- and first post-construction surveys in Germany have been used to revise
German Environmental Impact standards. In Germany, it is currently forbidden to use airplane-based survey techniques within existing wind farms and this has limited the use of some avian survey methodologies; however, the advance of survey flights recording videos or taking digital images carried out at much higher altitudes will circumvent this problem. The Danes are definitely moving in the direction to identify hot and cold spots of avian activity, but have not made significant progress yet.
2.4 EUROPEAN MONITORING
2.4.1 What types of pre- and post-construction studies have been most informative?
Most of the European experts expressed there needs to be two kinds of pre-construction avian studies. The first are studies that allow one to make impact predictions useful for assessing potential risk and permitting. The second type of pre-construction survey would be designed to support confirmation of conclusions when compared to post-construction monitoring.
In Germany, a goal is to have a large scale governmental pre-construction monitoring
program that covers the whole German seas territory. The Germans are moving towards monitoring programs that can be used to assess the overall avian importance at an individual offshore wind site. A comprehensive pre-construction monitoring carried out by the individual developers then forms the basis for “effects monitoring” in the post-construction period. In the Netherlands, it is believed that the same pre- and post-construction monitoring programs may not be appropriate for different projects. You must begin by knowing the specific avian resources occurring within the project area. It is critical to deliver the same quality of answers as a result of the monitoring, but not critical to do exactly the same studies at every site.
In the UK the focus of post-construction monitoring is primarily to confirm the pre-
construction impact predictions and conclusions. Thus, in the UK the trend is not to implement broad scale post-construction monitoring, but rather to develop and implement surveys focused on validating specific critical conclusions from the pre-construction period. Broad scale monitoring is seen more as a tool to inform future siting decisions and not for post-construction monitoring.
15
The Danish monitoring programs has been based on aerial surveys to describe changes in bird distribution between pre- and post-construction as well as radar surveys to illustrate collision risk and barrier effects. Visual observations were used to make these investigations species specific. In Denmark data collection on bird distributions and collision risk have been collected by the same method under EIA-related surveys and the pre-construction effort, thus extending the data background for later comparisons between pre- and post-construction conditions for birds.
2.4.2 What benefits have been obtained from pre- and post-construction monitoring?
The benefits of pre- and post-construction monitoring programs are still being evaluated in Europe. In the Netherlands, the feeling is that even if a project is small and the general agreement is that its negative effects could not be significant, post construction monitoring to confirm impact predictions is important. It is felt that there is also value derived from the effort required to observe the demonstrated effects and to be able to replicate those observations over time.
2.5 EUROPEAN DATA AND DATA COLLECTION CONSIDERATIONS
2.5.1 Which data sets have been the key to answering regulatory and conservation biology related questions?
The general feeling was expressed by several of the European experts that conservation biology related questions have not been well addressed throughout Europe. An EIA directive requires analysis of cumulative impacts, but the vast majority of European projects have not addressed this well. Some of the questions that arose during this discussion were centered around defining what is meant by a cumulative impact. Is it necessary to just address the impacts of offshore wind farms, or to include all human-caused impacts to avian species? Should we be addressing from facilities just within a single nation or all facilities within a specific flyway?
Thus far in Denmark, most of the reports address cumulative impacts qualitatively. In
Germany, a working group of scientists and regulators is looking to define an approach to this matter. German EIA process must address cumulative habitat loss in terms of area and numbers of birds. The area and number of displaced birds is summed up. However, what is the right number to compare to? Once compared, is the impact determined to be a significant percentage of total habitat or population?
There was a discussion about the fact that cumulative effects may not necessarily be
“additive.” In the Netherlands, the approach to the cumulative impact issue is to understand the factors that make up the potential impact. Once this has been examined, then identify the largest, most serious impact and determine what factors would make that impact more serious. There is no value in simply adding up a number of small, insignificant impacts and citing that as the cumulative impact.
16
2.5.2 How are data collection methods standardized and do European developers share data they have collected?
The scientist and regulators in Europe are publishing studies and communicating with one another, the methods used throughout Europe do have quite a bit of commonality.
In Germany, a Standard (Investigation of the impacts of offshore wind turbines on the
Marine Environment) has been published and is regularly updated (2007). Further development will lead to a new update in 2013, focusing on post-construction studies. These standards include all fauna and flora investigations, also on birds regarding surveys, radar studies, visual and acoustic studies.
2.5.3 How are data used at larger scales and to understand cumulative effects? Currently in the UK environmental impact assessments consider the overall benefits from
individual projects. While the air quality benefits from a single wind project would not have a large effect, there would very clearly be a cumulative air quality benefit from the great offshore wind market sector. In Germany the environmental impact assessment process generally looks at single project effects. While some topics are addressed on a regional scale, there have not been any global considerations. It was expressed by at least one European expert that this question resides in the category of “saving the planet” which is very much outside of the typical regulatory processes and the consideration of project-specific cumulative effects.
2.6 CONSOLIDATION OF KEY POINTS FROM THE AVIAN BREAKOUT SESSIONS Perhaps the most widely agreed upon point between the European experts was the need for
robust survey designs that clearly define the conditions under which surveys will be carried out and also those conditions that are unsuitable for avian surveys. Once surveys have been completed the results should be made available to insure consistency in the quality of data and allow better functionality for review and conclusions. Publication of data collection methods, protocols, and results should be required. There was also significant general agreement that both pre- and post-construction surveys should be tightly focused on answering specific questions about effects of wind farms by comparison of pre- and post-construction data. In essence, no pre-construction survey should be undertaken without knowing what is desired to be known from the post-construction survey and how the post-construction survey will be conducted. Experience has shown the Europeans that pre-construction surveys did not provide the right data for comparisons with post-construction information. Furthermore, there was also strong general agreement that surveys must include a large enough area around a wind farm, not just the actual proposed project footprint because birds are often clumped and may use different areas within the vicinity of the wind farm from year-to-year.
By the end of the breakout sessions, each of the European experts had the opportunity to
emphasize concepts that they felt strongly about based on their experience in their respective countries. At the conclusion of the avian breakout sessions, each European expert was asked to provide some point of advice that could be thought of as a primary “take-away” that resulted from the day and a half of detailed breakout session discussions. Here is what was offered:
17
1. Establish a demonstration program that would cover several offshore wind facilities. The environmental program should be reviewed by an expert panel. In such a set-up, there will be opportunity for more general and experimental research that could benefit many other offshore wind facilities in the future.
2. Have a flexible framework for information gathering.
3. Work in partnership with developers and consultants.
4. Accept that you cannot know everything and that you may have to proceed with the information at hand.
5. European countries are at different places in their approach to monitoring, reflecting a diversity of perspectives. Countries with the most experience have determined that some of the broad-scale investigation designs were collecting too much data and few meaningful data. The focus is moving towards targeted investigations appropriate for the location of the wind facility.
6. Avoid the “mire of mindless monitoring”. Collect data that results in conclusions. Broad scale monitoring is valuable mostly to inform future siting decisions. Post-construction monitoring is in part meant to confirm the validity of preconstruction conclusions to inform future decisions.
18
3.0 BENTHIC HABITAT BREAKOUT SESSION
3.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this breakout session was for BOEM to learn from the European experience
in wind energy development and benthic habitat assessment. At the beginning of the session, each European expert gave an overview presentation based on questions provided to them by BOEM in advance. During the remainder of the breakout sessions, the European experts discussed the various European processes for characterizing benthic habitat and modeling potential impacts, and engaged in a dialogue with BOEM, other federal agencies, and public observers about lessons learned.
3.1.1 Background BOEM has statutory obligations to “protect the environment” under the U.S. Energy Policy
Act of 2005 and consult with NMFS regarding impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH), including benthic habitat, associated with offshore energy development. Benthic habitat vulnerability from renewable energy projects on the OCS is an important topic to understand since these impacts have the potential to affect a number of other resources through food chain shifts or disruption.
Impacts to benthic habitat can be both short- and long-term depending upon the type of
habitat that is impacted. Potential effects on benthic habitats and resources due to offshore renewable energy development include:
• Changes to seafloor morphology and structure
• Changes in median grain size or organic content
• Turbidity during construction/decommissioning
• Change in target species abundance and distribution (e.g., species of importance)
• Reef effects (colonization density, composition of communities on foundations)
• Current speed/direction While many types of monitoring protocols exist and are currently employed, there are no
standards for monitoring benthic resources in offshore locations in the U.S. The selection of appropriate sampling and assessment methodologies is vital to understanding the potential effects on benthic habitat and resources, particularly since natural variability is extremely high in benthic communities. Based on past experience, the monitoring protocols have been project- and site-specific, determined by the size of the project and the potential for environmental effects, which in turn have been determined by the location and the species present at the project site.
BOEM is interested in developing best practices for characterizing benthic resources and
evaluating impacts to benthic resources associated with the construction and operation of offshore renewable energy projects. A recently completed study funded by BOEM, Developing Environmental Protocols and Modeling Tools to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship (BOEM 2012-082), identified protocols for consideration by BOEM to adopt. After
19
publication of this report, BOEM developed benthic survey guidelines to provide guidance for developers as they collected information for their site assessment and construction and operations plans.
In order to further refine the site assessment and characterization guidelines for offshore
wind development, BOEM convened this session to learn from the European experience in wind energy development and benthic habitat assessment directly from those engaged in assessments for offshore wind facilities that were recently constructed and are now in operation. Specifically, BOEM was interested in getting the European’s perspective on the following issues during the workshop:
• Habitat classification
o Is there a standard habitat classification system? If so, in what ways has it been successful, and in what ways has it not been successful? How would you improve it?
• Pre-Construction Surveys o At what scale/density should habitat be surveyed prior to development?
o What is most critical to measure/observe prior to development, and at what scale?
o How is habitat survey data being used?
• Post-Construction Monitoring o What have been the results of habitat impact monitoring during construction
and operation at existing offshore wind energy projects?
o How are post-construction impacts being monitored? What is most critical to measure after development?
o What are the significant habitat impacts you have observed?
• Predictive modeling o Are models used to characterize habitats? Which models?
o How do monitored impacts compare with model prediction?
• Habitat Vulnerability
o What habitat types are most vulnerable to impacts from offshore wind energy?
o Use of habitat vulnerability indices
3.1.2 Participants Participants in the Benthic Habitat Session included the European experts, BOEM, NOAA,
state agencies, researchers, industry representatives, and consultants. Some of the invited European experts presented slides at the start of the breakout session (see Appendix E).
20
Biographies of the invited European participants are provided in Appendix E to the report and a list of attendees is provided below.
European Experts: Martin Attrill, PhD, Plymouth University (England) Arjen Boon, PhD, Deltares (Netherlands) Bryony Pearce, Gardline (Scotland) Tom Wilding, PhD, Scottish Marine Institute/Scottish Association of Marine Science (Scotland) BOEM Staff: Brian Hooker Greg Boland Callie Hall David Panzer Mike Rasser Michelle Morin U.S. Participants: David DeCaro John King Rich Langton Mark Monaco Carl Nielsen (facilitator) Matthew Nixon Jeff Reidenauer Jennifer Samson Chris Taylor Sue Tuxbury Stephanie Wilson (Note Taker) Roberto Llanso Jill Rowe Aileen Kenny Steve O’Malley Marcia Bowen Jennifer Harris
3.1.3 Overview of European Perspective The European Union (EU) has established the Habitat Directives, which requires each
country in the union to designate areas of importance for protection. These areas are given formal protection by law and are considered as part of the site selection process for offshore wind energy development. Currently, the designation of these areas is features-based and
21
considers rarity of the habitat, diversity and vulnerability; commercially important species are not always a consideration. Subsequent to the establishment of the Habitat Directives, a Marine Strategy Framework Directive was established, which presented an ecosystem-based approach to ensure healthy ecosystems.
The monitoring of the habitats identified by the Habitat Directive is regulated by law;
however because the EU has established a risk-averse approach to monitoring at the local scale, the resulting data are not necessarily appropriate for the assessment of system-wide impacts over broad spatial scales. It was noted that one of the keys to being able to establish a system-based approach is to identify and accept risk at the local level and focus monitoring on the broader spatial area to better understand changes to the system. To date, mostly baseline surveys and a few impact assessments have been conducted in the EU related to offshore wind energy development.
While much of the European perspective is relevant to all countries within the EU, there were
differences identified between certain areas, particularly the United Kingdom (UK, encompassing England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and the Netherlands. In the discussion below, it is assumed that points made apply to the entire EU, unless noted as specific to the UK or Netherlands.
3.2 BENTHIC HABITAT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS The BOEM Benthic Habitat Guidelines requires use of the Coastal Marine Ecological
Classification System (CMECS), which was developed by NOAA in coordination with other Federal agencies. This classification system has been accepted by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), making it a recommended standard for use by the Federal government. Included in the classification system are water column, geological formation, and biological components, sediment, as well as spatial and temporal information.
Classification systems have also been successfully used in the EU. The European Nature
Information System (EUNIS) is the standard European habitat classification guideline. EUNIS was developed based on the framework of the EU Habitat Directives and incorporates data on species, habitats and sites. The Netherlands use the EUNIS guidelines; however the UK uses the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) guidelines, which preceded, but are compatible with, EUNIS. The JNCC guidelines are based mainly on nearshore environments and consist of five levels of classification, incorporating environment, habitat types, and biotopes. The biotope levels are in the process of being revised to include a functional group prior to species identification. Both classification systems include invasive species.
UK projects are legally required to use the JNCC guidelines and establish level 4
classifications (i.e. species level). Video and remote sensing techniques are typically used to assign classification. In the Netherlands, EUNIS is the standard, but its use is not legally required. Because there is less diversity in the seabed composition, physical parameters such as hydrographic regime and salinity drive the classification scheme in the Netherlands.
22
Questions from the participants focused around the concept of scale as it relates to benthic habitat classification.
• What is the spatial distribution of benthic habitat samples (e.g. benthic grabs, video, etc.)
for a typical wind energy facility?
o In the EU it is typically a negotiation between industry and the regulators. It was recommended, for wind farms, that samples be collected at a minimum of one sample per one kilometer grid area.
• Is it is possible to have a gradient or continuum for habitat classification? o Habitat can be classified on a continuous scale using predictive models (discussed
in more detail below). For example, biotopes can be predicted based on physical parameters, such as slope and grain size. These models are typically used to generate habitat maps. However it was cautioned that scale is an important factor to consider in the development and interpretation of these maps.
3.3 PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS In the U.S., the government has taken on the responsibility of identifying wind energy areas
(WEAs), but it is the responsibility of the developer to collect site-specific data. Although there is not a specific mandate to do so; in the U.S., Federal and state agencies have been working cooperatively to conduct regional baseline assessments for potential wind energy areas. In the EU, countries are responsible for mapping and identifying zones appropriate for offshore energy development, which is based primarily on the presence/absence of vulnerable species. Generally, benthic habitat in a broad context is not often a priority in the selection process in comparison to species-specific or human use (e.g., endangered species, military uses, etc.) criteria. However, benthos does play role in the overall biodiversity of an area via the food web. In the UK, site characterization and pre-construction surveys of specific wind farm areas are the responsibility of the developer. In the Netherlands, there exists a country level (large-scale) characterization of marine habitat. Once a license is awarded, the developer is responsible for the site-specific pre-construction monitoring.
The BOEM Benthic Habitat Guidelines state that one pre-construction survey must be
conducted prior to the submittal of the Construction and Operations Plan (COP). The pre-construction survey may also serve as the baseline. The purpose of the pre-construction survey is to characterize and delineate the abundance, diversity, percent cover, and multivariate community composition of the seafloor in the area of potential effect. The area of potential effect is defined as the lease area as well as any adjacent area where site disturbance activity could occur. Recommended sampling techniques include grab samples (~ 0.1m2/sample [soft bottom]) and underwater video or still imagery (soft and hard bottom). Special attention should be given to the presence of sensitive benthic habitats, including areas with exposed hard bottoms of high, moderate, or low relief; hard bottoms covered by thin, ephemeral sand layers; seagrass patches; or kelp and other algal beds, as well as the presence of anthozoan species. Although reconnaissance should be conducted on the entire area, more detailed monitoring should be conducted where activity is expected (i.e. monopiles, anchoring, cable lay, etc). The guidelines also recommend the identification of control sites for post-construction monitoring, based primarily on physical characterization.
23
In the EU, site characterization surveys are separate from pre-construction surveys. Site
characterization surveys are reconnaissance level and serve as the baseline. Sampling is typically conducted in a grid pattern to get a broad characterization of the area. Standard Best statistical practice is to obtain three years of baseline data; however it was acknowledged that the length of the baseline study is typically negotiated to be a practical balance between ideal science and cost. The results of the site characterization survey are then used to refine the design of the pre-construction survey. Pre-construction monitoring is conducted as close to construction as possible, but must be conducted within 2 years of initiation of construction. Pre-construction monitoring typically employs a stratified sampling design with the objective of being able to assess impacts post-construction.
Three key components were identified as being vital to the development of site
characterization and pre-construction surveys: scale, sampling technique, and variability. Scale was identified as a key component for any monitoring program; however it has not been specifically defined for site characterization or pre-construction surveys in the EU. Scale is often negotiated with the regulating agency; a commonly employed scale is 1 sample per 1-2 km. However the density of sampling may be smaller depending upon the heterogeneity of the benthic environment being sampled. It was noted that it is preferable to have an understanding of the natural variability of the system being studied when defining the scale of a monitoring program. It was suggested that monitoring be conducted at the lease area scale or broader in order to understand regional and population effects. For example, monitoring of benthic function, rather than species presence/absence, provides more relevant information for an ecosystem-based model.
The selection of appropriate sampling techniques was also identified as a key component to a
monitoring program. Traditional tools used in benthic habitat monitoring include:
• Grab sampling (traditional VanVeen) – appropriate for soft sediment
• Video
• Sledge sampling (benthic sled) – better sampling of rare species
• Hamon grab – more appropriate for hard habitat
• Sediment Profile Imagery (SPI) – able to efficiently cover large areas
There were advantages and disadvantages noted for each of the techniques mentioned above.
For example, benthic grabs have been used in the evaluation of trawling and scour, but are only able to characterize relatively small areas. However, grabs are also used to ground truth the results of both acoustic and SPI sampling conducted over broader areas. Alternatively, SPI is able to efficiently cover a large area and provide information about community function; however detailed species analysis is not possible. In the EU, the sampling technique is defined by the regulators. The most commonly used techniques are video and the Hamon and VanVeen grabs.
24
Seasonal and temporal variability were also identified as important considerations in the development of monitoring programs. Current U.S. guidelines don’t address the seasonal or inter-annual variability of benthic communities. However, it was recommended that monitoring be conducted at the same time of year in order to differentiate between changes that are the result of seasonal or annual variability versus development activities. It was again emphasized that by establishing the pre-existing condition of an area you develop an understanding of the natural variability of the system, which is vital to developing a robust and meaningful monitoring program.
The establishment of impact thresholds also elicited a great deal of discussion, including a
discussion on the difference between impact thresholds and baseline. Although impact thresholds have not been formally established in the EU, informal guidelines are often established based on the impact assessment documentation and are conveyed as part of the lease/license agreement. It was acknowledged that practically-speaking, there is a balance between ideal science and what is acceptable for costs in the establishment of impact thresholds. It was recommended that impact thresholds be established early in the process, prior to construction, preferably during the site characterization process. There was also concern that there might not be enough data to establish a statistically robust impact threshold. It was then recommended that expert judgment be used in the establishment of impact thresholds. However, impact thresholds established via expert judgment tend to be more difficult to enforce from a regulatory standpoint. The EU experts cautioned against setting rigid impact thresholds and monitoring protocols and recommended that the U.S. maintain flexibility in the establishment of impact thresholds and take an adaptive management approach to monitoring.
An example was provided of a site characterization survey conducted in the North Sea. The
North Sea has a 50 year monitoring history, including the collection of bathymetry, chemistry, and biology. Benthic mapping was done using high resolution multibeam sonar combined with benthic sampling. Benthic sampling was conducted in a grid pattern with stations spaced 50-80 km apart and employed box cores and benthic sled sampling. The benthic mapping followed the approach of the Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) classification system, which has established guidelines for seabed habitat mapping over the coastal and shelf zones of the Atlantic Area in order to help informed spatial planning and management.
Lessons learned from site characterization/pre-construction surveys conducted in the EU
include: • It is important to sit with regulators pre-survey and engage stakeholders prior to license
assignment.
• It is prudent to do both a baseline and pre-construction survey
• Use regional/large scale data to understand population level effects
• Use results of long term monitoring programs to understand naturally occurring temporal variability in benthic communities
• Identify an appropriate response variable in characterization survey, use pre-construction survey to quantify selected response variable.
25
• Identify the ecological question in need of an answer, involving stakeholders such as fishermen. Focus surveys on the ecosystem function you are interested in protecting. This ecosystem function is usually identified as a societal term.
• Tailor monitoring program to the question and expected changes in the specific habitat you are looking at.
3.4 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING In the EU, post-construction monitoring surveys are similar in design to the pre-construction
surveys. In the UK, post-construction monitoring typically consists of a nested random sampling design focused on the area adjacent to the impacted area. Although programs exist to examine the immediate local effects, such as scour; they are not typically part of the post-construction monitoring program. The most common sampling techniques used in the EU are grabs and video. In the UK, post-construction surveys are required to be conducted the first year after construction and then every 5 years. To date, limited (expected) impacts from scouring and shadowing on seabed organisms have been observed, but no significant effects on marine mammals or fish have been noted. Overall, results of post-construction monitoring have indicated that outside of the small immediate area of scour, there is no noticeable difference in the adjacent area (approximately 10 m away) compared to the reference area.
When designing the pre- and post-construction monitoring program, it is important to
understand what kind of change matters and how much change is unacceptable. Scale was again noted during the discussion of identifying change and establishing impact thresholds. It should be assumed that changes will occur at the small scale, (i.e. in the immediate vicinity of the installation footprint of the pilings), but those changes may not likely be meaningful if these changes do not result in impact on a regional or population level. It is therefore the identification of change at scales relevant to the question being asked (e.g. regional or site-specific) that should be the focus of the monitoring program. In order to determine the significance of the change, it is important to understand the natural variation of the system being studied. Once the natural variation is understood, impact thresholds can be established that fall outside of the natural variability of the system. Otherwise it is difficult to determine whether the changes are significant and attributable to the operation or construction of the wind farm or part of the natural variability of the system. A Belgium example was given in which change was examined across multiple groups (benthic, fish, birds, mammals). A meaningful change could not be identified within individual groups; however the relative change among groups was examined to determine whether the change was consistent.
One of the primary concerns voiced by U.S. Federal agencies was whether the installation of
structures (pilings, etc.) in the wind energy areas would change the community structure of the surrounding environment. In Belgium and the Netherlands, higher abundances of structure-associated fish were observed around the wind farm structures post-construction, but it was not clear whether that was due to attraction of fish from outside the area or internal production. They also documented an increase in the number of porpoises present in the area. However, there was not a change in the abundance of bottom fish present in the area. One of the only demonstrated changes in the Netherlands was a significant increase in sand eels within the wind farm area. It
26
was hypothesized that this result was an artificial reef effect due to the aggregation of pelagic species around the hard substrate introduced by the wind turbine foundations.
Of the impacts noted during post-construction monitoring of wind farm areas in the EU, the
size of the scour pits was most surprising. Although dramatic in depth, the scour footprint was still relatively local (tens of meters). It was also noted that hydrographic models didn’t accurately convey the extent of the scour impact. Additional scour protection was placed as a mitigation measure. Invasive species were also noted as a sensitive indicator of impact on the larger scale. It was suggested that species with both benthic and pelagic phases may be the most sensitive to impacts from wind farm development.
3.5 PREDICTIVE MODELING In the EU, predictive models have been used to predict habitat but not impacts. Predictive
models are typically developed using data from the characterization survey in order to characterize a broader area. The most common models used in the UK are EUNIS-based, in which simple techniques are used to predict more complex habitats. Techniques employed to predict habitat classifications across soft sediment in the EU include multi-beam bathymetry, side-scan (backscatter), sediment grabs, ADCP, and wave buoys. The most common employs grab samples to classify the local habitat and provide niche descriptions, combined with the physical characterization provided by the side-scan and backscatter data, to create a continuous habitat map of an area.
Other models used in the EU include:
• Eutrophication process models – combined with benthic habitat models to understand the variation in hydrodynamic processes and the impact on the benthic habitat.
• Scouring models – model turbulence around structure
• EcoSim/EcoPath – model the impact of adding hard structure to the system
• Nutrient model – assess the supply of nutrients and food over space and time.
• Logistic regression models – classify habitats types Although the European experts indicated that many of these models performed reasonably
well, few were able to detect meaningful changes due to wind farm effects on a local or regional scale. These results suggest that either significant changes did not occur or the models did not have adequate resolution to identify change.
Resolution and coverage were two of the major limitations identified with the use of
predictive models. Although one of the benefits of predictive models is the ability to develop a continuous surface using discrete measurements, there are assumptions made as part of the extrapolation process that carry with them varying degrees of uncertainty, which itself is unquantifiable or difficult to quantify,, including the need to assign arbitrary boundaries to a continuous system. It was recommended that a confidence (or uncertainty) assessment be
27
performed when using predictive models because variability in the dependent variables as well as the presence of covariates can significantly limit the resolution of predictive models.
3.6 HABITAT VULNERABILITY INDICES Both the EU and U.S. participants acknowledged that some habitats are more vulnerable to
impacts than others. In the U.S. there is a joint effort by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (National Coastal Conditional Assessment) and NOAA to derive a species sensitivity list and develop indicators for coastal and estuarine environments. In the UK, species vulnerability indices exist, but are not habitat specific. One of the parameters included in the index is recoverability (resilience), which depends not only on the species characteristics, but also the nature of the impact. Benthic quality indicators also currently exist in the Europe, employed in the UK under the EU Underwater Framework Directive, which ranks species with respect to vulnerability to waste water impacts. They are in the process of retooling the index to evaluate species vulnerable to trawling. The Marine Life Information Network (MARLIN) is also used in the UK in the assessment of species vulnerability. MARLIN includes sensitivity tables for species, specific to certain activities. Vulnerability indices do not exist in the Netherlands.
3.7 ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ITEMS In addition to discussing the specific questions identified in the agenda, various other related
topics were discussed. A summary of the additional discussions is provided below. How does the EU approach ecosystem-based management? Ecosystem–based management is complex and difficult to define. As a result, it was
acknowledged that it might not be reasonable or possible to enforce such an approach on developers. It will likely require a cooperative approach between agencies and developers to obtain the correct data to implement an ecosystem-based management approach.
Who is responsible for assessing cumulative impacts? In the U.S., the government has the responsibility of assessing impacts on a regional scale;
however developers are required to assess the impacts of their projects in combination with other nearby projects. To date, cumulative impacts have focused on birds, mammals, fish and not the benthic community. In the Netherlands the government is responsible for identifying cause and effect level habitat disturbance, whereas the developers are responsible for site-specific impacts.
How is trawling/fishing regulated within wind farm areas? In the UK there are no formal restrictions to trawling within wind farm areas; however there
are practical restrictions in the form of spatial maneuverability. If restrictions exist, they are documented in the lease agreement. In the Netherlands trawling is not allowed in wind farms as a safety measure.
Is there an expected benefit in the nearby waters from fishing restrictions at wind farm areas?
28
There is no clear answer. Additional research, in the form of artificial reef projects, needs to be conducted. When examining the compatibility of offshore fishing with offshore wind, it was noted that the turbine array is a key feature. It was also recommended that the socio-economics of fishing be considered when considering potential fishing restrictions.
Are the piles or cables in the EU armored? Armoring of cables is not common because it tends to be more damaging to the environment
than the initial burial. However, where scour, sand waves, or hard substrate make cable burial unwise or cost prohibitive cables are armoured.
How do you measure system-level impacts, such as for invasive species? Wind turbines enable species movement by potentially providing stepping stones to facilitate
dispersal of invasive species. Turbines also provide novel habitat, which may promote the proliferation of invasive species. Connectivity studies were recommended in order to further understand the movement of larvae from platform to platform. Some of these studies are being undertaken at the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS). It was also questioned whether the impact of sessile invasive species could be mitigated with cleaning, painting, etc? Mitigation is typically included as part of the license agreement. The example was given that Cape Wind is being required to clean/scrape the turbine structures to minimize biofouling. The resultant biomass to the seabed (e.g. of mussels) will cause localized impacts in the form of increased organic content in sediments and the attraction of predator/scavenger. There is no reason to think that a localized increase in productivity would be associated with such structures and that this enhanced productivity could extend to fisheries species.
What have been the effects of storms (i.e. increase hurricane frequency with climate change)
and has there been any related effect on benthic community? The current industry standard in the EU is the monopole, although the tripod design provides
more stability. The tripod base is typically filled in with rock to provide added stability, but this also results in more hard structure habitat. The gravity base design is used in Belgium. There have been no studies on the differences between bases and their effect on benthic habitat.
What are the effects of EMF? (see reference for suggested readings) The results of EMF impact studies are inconclusive. Burial of the EMF emitting source
doesn’t appear to have an effect. In general it was found that some fish would move when exposed to EMF within a few hundred meters. In other studies elasmobranches were found to be attracted to cables. There was also little evidence of EMF affecting marine mammal communication. In fact, heat from the transmission cables was more likely to have an effect than EMF.
Will data be made available, and if so, how and when?
29
One of the major problems in the development process in both the U.S. and parts of the EU is that there isare a lot of data but the data are not shared among developers and are not made available to the public, leading to discrepancies in how data are collected and replication of effort. In some case, data may eventually become available, but not until after a long review process. The UK uses the Marine Resource System (MaRS) to catalog and manage their data. Data (raw and processed) are required to be loaded in a particular format every 3 months and data become available during Round 3 of development, once the application is submitted. In the U.S., developers are protective of data due to the high level of uncertainty associated with the project development process. BOEM’s intent is to make data (processed data layers) available via the Marine Cadastre. Additional data will also be available from the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) and the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC).
3.8 SUMMARY OF BENTHIC HABITAT SESSION There were a great number of lessons learned from the European experts during the benthic
habitat session. The following suggestions were made relative to guiding the collection and assessment of benthic data during the offshore wind farm development process:
• Need to accept some level of impact. Local effect likely, but may not be meaningful
at the regional scale. Focus effort to understand/evaluate ecosystem service.
• If you want to detect a change, define a change to monitor for, don’t just monitor. Need to find a cause and effect within a wind farm area to understand/monitor.
• If you don’t have enough information to establish impact thresholds, take an adaptive management approach. Adapt policy/regulations as you learn more. If regulations are too stringent, you may end up monitoring for illogical parameters.
• Develop an inventory of knowledge gaps and design monitoring program to fill in gaps. Possibly coordinate monitoring efforts across individual developers to ensure robust monitoring at the proper scale.
Although there was a large amount of valuable information exchanged during the benthic
habitat session, one of the concerns that came up multiples times and remains unresolved is the question of scale. In order to understand and answer the question of scale, a meaningful and relevant question needs to be defined. Suggested questions to consider when determining scale in the development of benthic monitoring and assessment programs include:
• What effects are you interested in measuring? Local, regional, population?
• What is natural variation? Need to know natural variation to understand change and its significance.
In summary, based on the overall lack of large scale effects found from benthic monitoring of
offshore wind farms in the EU, impacts to benthic habitats do not appear to be a limiting factor in the continued development of offshore wind energy. A well-defined monitoring framework is important; however the ability to take an adaptive management approach was identified as key to
30
developing an effective monitoring program. In the U.S., there appears to be an existing framework within which to begin the assessment process, namely the essential fish habitat (EFH) and Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) designations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. There also exists a long term independent fisheries program, through the NMFS spring and fall bottom trawl surveys, which translate to regional scale, ecosystem-based scale knowledge. These two items provide a solid foundation upon which to further refine the assessment and characterization guidelines. It was agreed that continued dialogue between the EU and BOEM would be beneficial to the continued development and assessment of offshore wind energy.
3.9 REFERENCES Includes references and suggested readings from participants.
Alexander, K.A., Janssen, R., Arciniegas, G., O’Higgins, T.G., Eikelboom, T., and Wilding, T.A. 2012. Interactive marine spatial planning: Siting tidal energy arrays around the Mull of Kintyre. PLoS ONE 7(1): e30031.
Alexander, K.A., Wilding, T.A., and Heymans, J.J. 2012. Attitudes of Scottish fishers
towards marine renewable energy. Marine Policy (in press). BOEM, 2013. Guidelines for Providing Benthic Habitat Survey Information for Renewable
Energy Development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Pursuant to 30 CFT Part 585, http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Regulatory_Information/Habitat%20Guidelines.pdf.
Gill, A.B., Bartlett, M., and Thomsen, F. 2012. Potential interaction between diadromous
fishes of U.K. conservation importance and the electromagnetic field and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments. Journal of Fish Biology 81: 664-695.
McCann, J. 2012. Developing Environmental Protocols and Modeling Tools to Support
Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon, VA., OCS Study BOEM 2012-082, 626 pp.
Lindeboom, H.J., Kouwenhoven, H.J., Bergman, M.J.N, Bouma, S., Brasseur, S., Daan, R.,
Fijn, R.C., de Haan, D., Dirksen, S., van Hal, R., Hille Ris Lamber, R., ter Hofstede, R., Krijsveld, K.L., Leopold, M., and Scheidat, M. 2011. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environmental Research Letters 6: 035101.
Ohman, M.C., Sigray, P., and Westerberg, H. 2007. Offshore Windmills and the effects of
Electromagnetic Fields on Fish. Ambio. A Journal of the Human Environment 36(8):630-633. Reubens, J.T., Degraer, S., and Vincx, M. 2011. Aggregation and feeding behavior of
pouting (Trisopterus luscus) at wind turbines in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Fisheries Research 108: 223-227.
31
Sheehan, E.V., Stevens, T.F., and Attrill, M.J. 2010. A quantitative, non-destructive
methodology for habitat characterization and benthic monitoring at offshore renewable energy developments. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14461.
Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T., and Ohman, M.C. 2006. The influence of offshore windpower
on demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 775-784.
32
4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE BREAKOUT SESSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this breakout session was for BOEM archaeologists to learn from the
European experience in wind energy development and submerged pre-contact archaeology. During the breakout session, BOEM agency archaeologists and invited European experts discussed the European regulatory process for the identification and mitigation of impacts to cultural and archaeological resources, with an opportunity each day for attendees to ask technical questions and engage the European experts directly. Each session for this topic addressed a specific area, as discussed below.
4.1.1 Background Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, BOEM is required to take into
account the effects of the bureau’s undertakings on historic properties1. To gather baseline information on historic properties, BOEM commissioned and recently released the Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (TRC, 2012). This study is not intended to replace site characterization studies that will be completed to identify historic properties, but rather to accomplish two goals: first, the study presented a model for identifying areas of the Atlantic OCS where there is potential for preserved pre-contact archaeological2 sites. Second, the study presented compiled research in a database of known and reported historic shipwrecks along the Atlantic OCS and provided a written historic context for these wrecks. The database contains over 11,000 entries and incorporates extant databases, literature on shipwrecks, state and federal data on shipwrecks, and the results of limited archival research at a number of institutions along the east coast.
Equipped with a baseline inventory of potential shipwrecks and a model that identified areas
of the Atlantic OCS that have the potential to contain pre-contact sites, BOEM is contemplating best practices for the identification of, and resolving adverse effects to, historic properties as related to offshore wind development. To that end, BOEM was interested in gaining the European perspectives on the following issues during the workshop:
1. Compare how, through environmental planning, both the US and the international
regulatory regimes work to prevent impacts to historic properties.
2. Discuss success stories and lessons learned from European mitigation strategies which, by definition reduce the severity or seriousness of impacts to historic properties from offshore wind developments.
3. Identification of submerged pre-contact sites on the OCS, both remotely and through direct sampling.
4. Development of standards for direct sampling.
33
4.1.2 Participants Participants in this session included the invited European attendees, BOEM, US DOE,
Narragansett Indian Tribe, and industry representatives and consultants. Biographies of the invited European participants are provided in Appendix F to the report and a list of attendees is provided below.
Invited Attendees: Paul Baggaley, PhD, Wessex Archaeology (England) Jonathan Benjamin, PhD, Wessex Archaeology (Scotland) Jørgen Dencker, PhD, The Viking Museum (Denmark) Michael Faught, PhD, Panamerican Consultants (United States) Antony Firth, PhD MIfA, Fjordr Limited (England) Christopher Pater, English Heritage (England) Kieran Westley, PhD, University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) BOEM Staff: David Ball Brandi Carrier William Hoffman Brian Jordan James Moore U.S. Participants: Stefan Claesson Amanda Evans Jeremy Firestone Stephen Geiger Doug Harris Michael Krivor David Lockledge Scott Lundin (Facilitator) Terry Orr (Note Taker) JB Pelletier David Robinson
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE EUROPEAN PLANNING PROCESS In the UK, different regulatory leasing approaches had previously been used in Rounds 1 and
2 and in Scottish Territorial Waters. Currently, the Crown Estate Round 3 leasing process requires a post-lease, Zonal Assessment (ZA) prior to Final Licensing/Consent of an individual project. In the ZA-phase, the lease area awarded to a developer is refined to identify project-specific development areas within a zone, each of which may be on a different timetable for consent and construction. As part of this regional assessment, a regional-scale cultural/archaeological survey is conducted and paid for by developers. This ZA-phase survey
34
involves wider line spacing as compared to consent period surveys (100 to 200 meters) and subsequent post-consent / pre-construction level surveys (~ 30 meters) that are focused on obstruction avoidance.
Once the development area is identified, based on the regional-scale survey, an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted by the developer, who generally commissions specialty environmental consultancy services and sub-contractors (to include archaeological specialists). The government is obliged to provide advice on the scope of the EIA and in practice there is often quite a lot of communication between developer and government agencies to ensure that the EIA will prove to be “adequate.” The EIA is carried out and reviewed by relevant internal parties, submitted to the appropriate regulatory bodies and reviewed by the agents therein; often consultations with curators and specialists take place during the review process.
Cultural resources that may be identified during the EIA process are more closely examined
in the post-consent phase, unlike in the U.S. where cultural resource impacts are a critical component of NEPA review and therefore must be thoroughly reviewed prior to project approval. Instead, through the EIA process, resolution of possible adverse effects to archaeological heritage must be addressed to include the identification of mitigation measures where a significant effect is anticipated. Typically, mitigation measures are formalized in a Written Scheme of Investigation, which is reviewed and approved by the appropriate regulatory body (e.g. Historic Scotland in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency in Northern Ireland). The critical distinction between the UK-process and the US process is that historic property identification must be fully documented and assessed in the US prior to project approval, whereas this occurs post-consent / pre-construction in Europe.
Final Consent of the project is issued following the EIA process. One of the conditions of the
Consent decree is implementation of the approved Written Scheme of Investigation, which describes post-consent / pre-construction activities that must be conducted by the developer. Written schemes of investigation are specific about data gathering activities and how to manage findings. These activities include archaeological assessments, like those described in Section 4.4.
BOEM staff acknowledged that regional level surveys would be of great value in informing
project-specific site characterization activities. Although regional surveys are outside the scope of current regulations, they have been solicited by BOEM through the environmental studies program and conducted through partnerships with other federal agencies. For example, BOEM has funded regional surveys in Massachusetts and North Carolina. BOEM also can incorporate requirements for the treatment of historic properties into lease and plan approval conditions.
The Europeans acknowledged that visual impacts to onshore resources have not been as
critical as they are here in the US, though this is changing. As visual impacts to onshore resources constitute an area of increasing concern, European regulators (like English Heritage) expressed the same difficulty as regulators in the US in assessing visual impacts and what constitutes effective mitigation. The European attendees are trained archaeologists and therefore visual impact issues are a relatively new consideration within their area of technical expertise.
35
The Europeans are still trying to clarify how best to understand what is important to protect with respect to visual appearance of wind energy facilities upon the seascape and landscape.
4.3 EUROPEAN CULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION STRATEGIES To date, avoidance has been the primary mitigation strategy implemented for archaeological
resources in the UK offshore renewable energy industry. However, the European attendees agreed that avoidance should not be the only acceptable strategy for three reasons: 1) avoidance maybe burdensome for developers in that they may redesign project elements to avoid remote sensing targets that may appear to represent archaeological sites, but that are not verified as such; 2) in some cases avoidance of a confirmed archaeological site may not be feasible based on the extensive footprint of a wind energy project; and 3) avoidance does not result in an increased understanding of the archaeological resource nor does it provide feedback to refine survey methods and interpretation of remote sensing anomalies. If developers always choose to avoid potential cultural resources, the opportunity is lost to gather information that could feed back into a better understanding of the best practices for identifying submerged archaeological sites and also for determining both appropriate avoidance measures and their effectiveness.
4.4 IDENTIFICATION OF SUBMERGED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN EUROPE Workshop participants discussed the relationship between submerged paleolandscapes,
submerged paleolandforms, and submerged pre-contact archaeological sites. A submerged paleolandscape consists of the surviving remains of the once terrestrial environment that are now submerged following post-glacial sea level rise. A paleolandscape may include geomorphological features that provide evidence of what an area of the OCS (e.g. river or stream channels and floodplains, estuary complexes, shoreline terraces, etc.) in addition to other types of evidence of a past paleo-environment (e.g. pollen, diatoms, foraminifera, or micro-charcoal concentrations/horizons). Thus, a paleolandscape may contain many paleolandforms. In contrast, a pre-contact site is a distinct geographic location within a single paleolandform that bears direct, physical evidence of human activity (e.g. stone tools, evidence of stone tool-making in the form of lithic debitage, or anthropogenically-modified specimens of fauna [exhibiting butchery marks]). Based on analogies that are drawn from terrestrial correlates, submerged paleolandforms may retain evidence of past human activity and therefore have the potential to contain archaeological sites; however, not all submerged paleolandforms or paleolandscapes are archaeological sites.
4.4.1 Archaeological Site Identification Where they have been preserved, the remnants of submerged paleolandscapes on the OCS
are located not only underwater, but in some cases buried below the seafloor, superimposed by more recent landform surfaces. These present a technically challenging environment in which to identify archaeological sites. The primary methods used to gather information on submerged paleolandscapes, and to identify archaeological sites that may exist within a paleolandscape, consist of high resolution geophysical survey and geotechnical sampling.
36
In most offshore industries in the US and Europe, submerged archaeological sites have been identified in the following process: first a geophysical survey is conducted using a standard suite of remote sensing equipment and then a geotechnical sampling program is conducted to ground-truth the geophysical interpretations resulting from the initial phase. The COWRIE document: Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector provides a summary of this process (2007, Chapter 8; see also Gribble and Leather 2011).
The standard suite of remote sensing equipment employed includes a multi-beam echo
sounder, side scan sonar, magnetometer, and sub-bottom profiler system(s). Sub-bottom profilers use acoustic energy to penetrate the seafloor and provide information on the underlying geology and sediment layers and, because of this, are the most relevant system for identifying paleolandforms. Various types of sub-bottom systems exist including chirp, pinger, sparker, and boomer profilers and the effectiveness of each system is dependent on the seafloor substrate in a particular survey area and the desired resolution (i.e. the thickness and separation of sediment layers that are observable in the data) and the targeted depth of investigation (i.e. the lowest sediment layer that is observable in the data). At different ends of the spectrum, a pinger sub-bottom profiler generally exhibits the highest resolution and lowest penetration depth, while a sparker sub-bottom profiler is characterized as providing the lowest resolution data but highest penetration depth. Boomer sub-bottom profilers are standard in the UK as they provide a balance between resolution and penetration for most areas around the UK.
Parametric Sonar is a relatively new type of sub-bottom profiler utilized in the UK that
presents several potential advantages. These advantages include the ability to mount the equipment to the survey vessel, rather than towing the instrumentation, in order to utilize motion sensors and improve data quality as well as levels of resolution and penetration that are generally considered to be superior to traditional sub-bottom profiler systems.
Following geophysical survey, a geotechnical sampling program is typically conducted using
a variety of methods that directly gather samples of sediments at, or below, the seafloor. These methods of direct sampling may include coring systems, benthic grabs, or dredging to obtain representative samples of the seabed. Cores are typically collected for the purpose of verifying the geophysical data and informing the geologic interpretation of a survey area. Cores can also be examined for evidence of a paleolandform (including the presence of paleosols or other evidence of terrestrial environments) and can also be subjected to radiometric dating. Radiometric dating informs the geologic interpretation of a region and may also be used to evaluate the potential for human activity for a particular soil horizon (see Gribble and Leather 2011). The sediments within the cores may also be also subjected to paleoenvironmental analysis (for example, analysis of pollen, diatoms, ostracods, foraminifera) which provides information on the environment at time of deposition as well as providing a proxy for relative dating of sediment horizons through a comparative analysis of floral and/or faunal assemblages.
The workshop participants acknowledged that while the geophysical survey and geotechnical
sampling methods are capable of providing information on paleolandscapes, identifying an archaeological site within a paleolandform comprising a part of these landscapes is an extremely challenging task. Direct evidence of human activity is difficult to definitively identify because
37
these archaeological sites are likely to be ephemeral, in some cases consisting only of small concentrations of lithic material.
The industry standard geotechnical techniques are used to identify and characterize sediment
horizons of archaeological interest, and, in conjuncture with the sub-bottom profiler data, to interpret and ground-truth remnant paleolandforms; however, coring techniques are not typically used to sample directly for archaeological materials. This is based on the size of the coring devices (for example, industry standard vibracores may have a diameter less than 5-inches) and the density of the samples typically taken, themselves functions of the extreme cost of sampling in this environment. Therefore, while terrestrial paleolandforms are directly sampled, for example, every 30 meters, submerged remnant paleolandforms are only sampled every kilometer. The spatial resolution of coring is typically not sufficient to detect pre-contact archaeological sites. Instead, this technique is used to define paleolandforms, and characterize their age and nature, rather than used to discover archaeological sites themselves. Because such a small portion of a landform is sampled in this way, the probability of recovering artifacts (such as projectile-points or lithic debitage) is very low. European experts have noted, however, that recent work (Weerts et al. 2012) has shown that dense targeted coring, in some instances, has been successfully employed to identify concentrations of archaeological materials.
The participants did acknowledge that artifacts or other direct evidence of an archaeological
site could be recovered in a vibracore, even if the sample was not taken for that purpose. A further point was raised that the method of analysis for core sampling typically operates on standard marine geological procedures (i.e. opening and logging cores and extracting small samples for further analysis and/or archiving), but that core samples are rarely screened for archaeological materials, as is standard practice on a conventional terrestrial archaeological sites.
An additional issue was raised with regard to materials recovered through direct sampling
that may present indirect evidence of human activity. For example, materials such as charcoal, un-butchered or unmodified animal bone, and plant remains may be related to human activity, but may also be naturally occurring. A site characterization study of this type may inform our understanding and reconstruction of a paleolandscape; however, it does not necessarily provide conclusive and direct evidence for the presence of a pre-contact archaeological site. Discussion among the group focused on the distinction between direct and indirect evidence of human activity and the importance in looking for, and considering, both types of evidence when reconstructing a paleolandscape and the potential for pre-contact archaeological sites to exist within that landscape.
No prehistoric submerged archaeological sites have yet been identified in the UK as a
consequence of offshore renewable energy development. This fact is partially influenced, however, by the general policy of avoidance of paleolandforms that have the potential to contain archaeological sites. Many of the European submerged archaeological sites have been identified through extensive study and/or dredging activities that uncover artifacts of human activity. The aggregate industry is one where submerged prehistoric sites have been identified in part, because extensive dredging activities result in artifacts being raised to the surface and identified through the mechanical screening process that is standard for dredging operations. Such a process mimics the standard archaeological screening of direct samples taken from terrestrial paleolandforms.
38
The dredging used as part of the aggregate industry, however, is extremely destructive to archaeological sites. Large volumes of sediment are generally not recovered on offshore renewable energy projects because submarine cables are typically installed using a jetting-tool installation technique and foundation structures are often driven into the seabed.
4.4.2 These systems are already in common use in Denmark and Germany The geotechnical sampling program is conducted using a coring system, benthic grab, or
dredge sampler to obtain representative samples of the seabed. Cores are typically collected for geophysical data verification and geologic interpretation and will often be examined for evidence of terrestrial environments (paleosols) and radiometric dating can be performed on any paleosols recovered in order to evaluate the potential for human activity for that particular soil horizon. The sediments within the cores are also subjected to paleo-environmental analysis (pollen, diatoms, ostracods, forams) which can give information on the environment at time of deposition as well as providing a proxy for dating through recognizing plant assemblages.
Predictive Modeling Workshop participants discussed the use of predictive modeling as a tool to delineate areas of
the OCS that may present a high-probability for the presence of submerged pre-contact archaeological sites. While some workshop participants advocated for using predictive models, several of the Europeans emphasized the limitations of the application of predictive models alone. Some of the European participants urged caution in reliance on predictive models without the necessary context generally achieved by acquiring and interpreting substantial volumes of data in order to understand the physical nature and environment, as well as preservation conditions, of the modern coast and offshore environments.
Denmark was identified as an example where predictive models have been shown to be
successful, however the Danes have been collecting data relevant to submerged paleolandscapes and archaeology prehistoric archaeological sites for decades. The Danes have collected abundant data, both environmental and cultural, to feed into the predictive models, which have been proven to be very accurate in determining site locations. Their predictive models are additionally robust because, in comparison to other countries, the Danes have generally had more interest and support in excavating these sites, rather than solely avoiding areas, as discussed above. In addition, it was noted by many of the workshop experts that the environmental conditions related to coastal and marine morphology that exist in Denmark do not exist in the UK or US. For example, the Danish coast has not gone much modification in the course of becoming submerged, and there is less sedimentation. Therefore, submerged prehistoric sites are found close inshore in shallow water and generally near the seafloor. In comparison, similar submerged archaeological sites in the UK or US have been exposed to much higher energy conditions during sea-level rise and have been exposed to higher rates of sedimentation and therefore are likely to be buried below many meters of sediment. Because of this, many of the challenges outlined above are not encountered in Denmark. Such data are not available for the US at this time and any model would have to consider the dataset on which they are built; at present, a large scale model used to exclude potential would be of little scientific value due to the paucity of available high-resolution data.
39
4.5 DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR DIRECT SAMPLING Participants in the breakout session agreed that there is no “One Size Fits All” approach to
the direct sampling of potential pre-contact submerged archaeological sites on the OCS. Sampling requirements are contingent on many variables including environmental conditions (water depth, sedimentological and geomorphological conditions) and cultural context (i.e. what artifacts are expected [lithic scatters/concentrations, shell middens, organic remains, evidence of subsistence or habitation activities such as concentrations of faunal material or structures, etc.])
Additionally, site conditions will dictate the type of sampling techniques that could be
implemented. For example, from a technological perspective, sampling in deep water will be more complicated than sampling in shallow water. Similarly, sampling in finely compacted sands will require a different technique as compared to sampling in a coarse gravel environment.
The historic context provides insight into what type of site or artifacts may be expected in a
given area and what type of sampling technique is most appropriate. For example, in the US and Denmark, a shell midden (a conglomeration of shells) is considered an indicator of potential human activity, while in the UK a shell midden may or may not be anthropogenically-constructed as opposed to naturally occurring.
The group discussed what a vibracore containing evidence of a submerged pre-contact site on
the Atlantic OCS would look like. It was agreed that the presence of charcoal and lithic tools or debitage could potentially be identified in vibracore material. However, as discussed above, some items may not be distinct indicators of human activity because they can occur naturally. However, since there are so few definitive pre-contact sites that have been identified on the OCS and the understanding of these sites offshore is limited, almost any potential indirect indicator of human activity may satisfy criteria D under the National Register: that the object or objects “may be likely to yield information important to prehistory or history.”
Curation was discussed and there were two primary facets of the discussion. The first is
related to the curation of artifacts and samples from archaeological sites. This is a broad issue, generally referred to as the “curation crisis” that is problematic for federal agencies and related to their ability to fund the long term storage and maintenance of archaeological collections. The second is related to the curation of vibracores or other sediment and organics samples that may not necessarily be archaeological in nature, but that still contain valuable environmental information. Many on the panel suggested that these samples should also be archived and raised the issue that they have long term scientific value beyond the project-specific need they were taken for by a developer. Consideration should be made early about how data and physical samples will be archived, both on an industry level as well as project-by-project. Curators, developers, and consultants must work together to set parameters and requirements in order to maximize the long-term value of data.
40
4.6 SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE SESSION There was unanimous agreement amongst all of the participants that the discussion in this
session was tremendously beneficial for both the Americans and the Europeans. It is strongly recommended that this line of communication be maintained for the benefit of both groups. The Europeans acknowledged that their industry has developed numerous conventions that are not always evident, but that a forum such as this forces reflection and consideration of better alternatives. Similarly, the Americans acknowledged that qualified resources (technical experts) are very limited in this country and that collaboration with European counterparts will be a valuable strategy for managing this resource limitation until the US offshore renewable energy industry becomes more mature. Ideas for future discussions include:
• Data and physical sample storage; what should be stored, how long should it be
stored, who should be responsible for the financial obligation of long-term data storage?
• How to design identification surveys, how to process the data, why is open/transparent data processing important, what are the limitations of the data being collected?
• Potential for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) and remote investigations to replace divers
• Capacity Building: finding qualified technical experts is challenging for both BOEM and industry. There is a need for students trained in geoarchaeology. Perhaps BOEM could support training programs to get geoarchaeology students to perform field work at ongoing sites in Europe to gain experience.
• A need to understand the field of study on two scales: landscapes and sites –and to integrate the approaches in terms of practical research, management, response to chance discovery, resource-procurement (and funding) and skills development / capacity building.
Marine archaeology is highly inter-disciplinary and requires a high degree of technical
specialty. The focus often turns to methodology, due to the challenge of investigating these environments. Based on the discussion, it is evident that the remote sensing requirements are well established but that the physical sampling required to identify human activity is the biggest challenge facing marine archaeologists. It is expected that the OCS around North America, based on cultural practices and an understanding of past (and present) human land usage combined with the positively demonstrated examples around the continent where paleolandforms have been identified (in a preserved state for tens of millennia), that archaeological sites do exist in a preserved state on and under the seabed on the US continental shelves. Their discovery, interpretation and an understanding of the resource is still challenging, mainly due to a lack of resources and projects aimed to carry out primary fieldwork to investigate these environments.
Finally, good archaeology and good development are not contradictions. BOEM and
developers working together forms a starting point. Combining information from multiple
41
surveys to feed common goals will help historic property identification surveys become more efficient and minimize the perception of burden.
Early engagement between all parties (developers, BOEM, archaeologists, tribes) is critical
and BOEM should work with state agency counterparts because it is impossible to understand the archaeological context of the OCS without understanding the near coastal environment.
1. The term ”historic property”, as defined under the National Historic Preservation Act,
means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.
2. A note on the use of pre-contact and prehistoric; pre-contact is the preferred term used when referring to people living in, what is today, North America prior to contact with European cultures. In the UK and Europe, “prehistoric” is the preferred term when referring to ancient archaeological remains.
4.7 REFERENCES Includes references and suggested readings by participants. Benjamin, J. (2011) Submerged Prehistory. Oxbow Books: Oxford. BOEM (2012), Guidelines for Providing Geological and Geophysical, Hazards, and
Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585. COWRIE (2008), Guidance for Assessment of Cumulative Impacts on the Historic
Environment from Offshore Renewable Energy. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference CIARCH-11-2006).
Fischer, A. (1995) Man and Sea in the Mesolithic. Flemming, N.C (2004) Submarine Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea. Gribble, J. and Leather, S. for EMU Ltd. (2011) Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and
Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference GEOARCH-09).
Johnson, L. and Stright, M. (1992) Palaeoshorelines in prehistory: an investigation of method Masters, P and Flemming, N.C. (1983) Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology.
42
TRC Environmental Corporation. (2012). Inventory and analysis of archaeological site occurrence on the Atlantic outer continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-008. 324 pp.
Wessex Archaeology Ltd (2007). Historical Environment Guidance for the Offshore
Renewable Energy Sector. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference ARCH-11-05). Wessex Archaeology Ltd (2010) Model Clauses for Archaeological Written Schemes of
Investigation – Offshore Renewables Projects. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd. The Crown Estate.
Wessex Archaeology Ltd (2010) Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries – Offshore
Renewables Projects. Commissioned by The Crown Estate. COWRIE Ltd. Firth, A., 2000, ‘Development-led archaeology in coastal environments: investigations at
Queenborough, Motney Hill and Gravesend in Kent, UK’, in Pye, K. and Allen, J.R.L. (eds), Coastal and Estuarine Environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology, Geological Society Special Publication, London, Geological Society, pp. 403-417, ISBN 1862390703.
Firth, A., 2004, ‘Prehistory in the North Sea: questions from development-led archaeology’,
in Flemming, N.C. (ed.), Submarine Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea: research priorities and collaboration with industry, CBA Research Report 141, York, Council for British Archaeology, pp. 89-94, ISBN 190277146X.
Firth, A., 2010, ‘A Scent of Plaice?’, Schofield, J. and Szymanski, R. (eds), Local Heritage,
Global Context: Cultural Perspectives on Sense of Place, Farnham, Ashgate, pp. 143-156, ISBN 9780754678298.
Firth, A., 2011, ‘Submerged Prehistory in the North Sea’, in Catsambis, A., Ford, B. and
Hamilton, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 786-808, ISBN 195375173.
Weerts, Henk, Andrea Otte, BjørnSmit, Peter Vos, Dimitri Schiltmans, Wouter Waldus, and
WilBorst 2012 Finding the Needle in the Haystack by Using Knowledge of Mesolithic Human Adaptation in a Drowning Delta. In Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 3 (2012), pp. 17–24.
Wenban-Smith, F., 2002, Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology on the Sea-bed: marine
aggregate dredging and the historic environment. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/projects/BMAPA-Protocol/mads2.pdfhttp://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/projects/BMAPA-Protocol/mads2.pdf.
Wessex Archaeology, 2008: Selection Guide. Prehistoric Landsurfaces and Deposits. Review
Draft 05/02/08. Unpublished report.http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue//adsdata/arch-856-1/dissemination/pdf/Prehistoric_Landsurfaces_and_Deposits_-
43
_Selection_Guide_050208.pdfhttp://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue//adsdata/arch-856-1/dissemination/pdf/Prehistoric_Landsurfaces_and_Deposits_-_Selection_Guide_050208.pdf.
44
5.0 CLOSING PLENARY SESSION OVERVIEW BOEM’s goal for the third morning of the workshop was to use a model that is being
developed to evaluate the wide array of factors, to evaluate methods of bringing together the three different topical areas into a cohesive method for communicating decisions regarding offshore wind siting. The model creates composite maps from disparate types of resource data that enable an assessment of potentially cumulative effects of the action. BOEM has not yet committed to using this model, but realizes that a comprehensive consideration of potential competing uses of resources under its management may be enhanced by using a model. Following the presentation describing the model, the workshop participants (divided into their breakout session groups from the previous two days) were asked to discuss whether and how this model could be useful, from the perspective of each resource category (avian, benthic habitat, cultural/archaeological).
5.1 CUMULATIVE USE EVALUATION MODEL Dr. Deborah French-McCay with RPS ASA presented the Cumulative Use Evaluation Model
(CUEM), which is described in the document: Developing Environmental Protocols and Modeling Tools to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship (BOEM 2012-082). An overview presentation of the CUEM can be found in Appendix C to this report. Dr. French-McCay explained the following main points about the CUEM:
The intended uses of the CUEM are:
• Identification of areas most suitable for facility siting (from an ecological and human use value perspective)
• Evaluation of the relative impacts of an offshore development considering ecological and human use values
• Evaluation of the cumulative impacts of multiple and competing uses The CUEM has two parts: an ecological model and a human use model. Thus far, the model
provides a framework for evaluating tradeoffs and is not a complete model. The ecological portion of the model is the most developed. The CUEM uses Ecological Value Models by compiling data on the continuous topologies of different resources (GIS-based maps that can be valuable standalone tools as well), then uses weighting schemes to modify the composite data based on a set of criteria. The current weighting schemes are purely exploratory. A “CIM-Eco Calculator” was created so that different numbers could easily be inserted, to see how they change the model’s output. This calculator function is important because it allows the model user to perform “what if” types of evaluations and determine the potential sensitivities of resources and uses considered in the model to changes in levels of the uses and their assigned values. The next step for the CUEM is developing a statistical summary of the output.
The current challenges with the CUEM include:
45
• Obtaining continuous topology for broad-scale coastal zones (comprehensive sampling cannot be done, so other methods are needed)
• Differing levels of data robustness because of different sources/funding levels/species characteristics
• Scale: some species are moving across vast distances, and the importance of an area can depend on the scale of analysis
The presentation was followed by questions from the workshop participants that ranged
widely based on their technical interest and their positions as scientists and regulators. Participants asked questions that related to both what factors might be considered under the CUEM and the data necessary to allow the model to make good predictions. There was further interest in understanding how animal migrations, viewsheds, and other large-scale factors could be considered. One important consideration not currently included in the CUEM is the specific consideration of positive impacts. Dr. French-McCay responded that the CUEM user can accommodate this when adjusting weighting factors. Incorporating ecological functions and food web relationships has been a challenge during the development of the model. For example, benthic resources can’t be displayed using just a density map. The project team looked for areas with the potential for growth in biodiversity, and resources that might need to be mapped out more specifically because they also affect other resources.
In response to a question that asked if stakeholders in a process would be able to manipulate
the model during a project review process, Dr. French-McCay explained that it currently envisioned that the user of the model would primarily be the regulator or resource manager, who could coordinate with participating stakeholders and re-run the model after evaluating and understanding their suggestions.
5.2 GROUP DISCUSSION AND REPORT-OUTS Following the presentation, workshop participants were asked to discuss the CUEM with
others from their technical breakout sessions, focusing on how to incorporate their resource data into the model, and what would be the constraints, opportunities, and questions associated with using this model. Following are the key points from the three technical breakout session groups on their primary impressions regarding the utility of, and potential problems with, using models such as the Cumulative Use Evaluation Model. BOEM and the model developers will use these points to further explore the utility of using cumulative models in the decision making process.
Avian Breakout Group:
• More useful for static resources.
• Conservation status may not be a good index because endangered species may not necessarily be vulnerable to wind energy. Sensitivity to impacts could be evaluated instead, and conservation status included as part of that evaluation.
46
• Include a map with exclusion areas (military zones, etc) to narrow down the baseline area.
• May be more helpful for the Pacific Region because much of the East Coast has already identified Wind Energy Areas.
• Need to be able to break down seasonal data as well, not just look at it in the aggregate.
Benthic Habitat Breakout Group:
• Need data to represent both benthos and its food source (pelagic).
• Large-scale habitat mapping is essential for continuous coverage.
• Standardizing data across a broad area is a significant challenge.
• ADCP (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) may be a useful tool for assessing benthic habitat.
• Seasonality is important to capture, as is scale, which may have significant impacts on outcomes (a particular habitat may be important on a local scale but not on a regional scale).
• How representative is the ecological value index?
• Benthic habitat data may be useful in building up other types of resource layers.
• Provides an opportunity for input from scientists, and from stakeholders who may then be more likely to buy-in to the data.
• Don’t have a way to address data that is NOT available, and how this impacts the weighting scheme.
• Each resource layer should have a level of uncertainty attached to it, which impacts its weighting; the uncertainty of the model itself should also be quantified.
Cultural Breakout Group:
• CUEM may be more useful as a planning tool (to identify a general area) than a siting tool (there is too much information for it to be useful); use CUEM for larger-scale decision making rather than smaller-scale decision making.
• Use CUEM to organize data, determine data gaps, and support expert-led judgment.
• Address/incorporate ecosystem resilience into the model.
• Interactions and relationships of resource impacts are important (pairing up data may be more valuable than layering it spatially).
47
• Segregation of ecological and human uses is problematic for cultural and archaeological resources, because the resource and the stakeholders transcend these categories. Many physical resources have both ecological and cultural significance.
• Archaeological resources can be very unique – a single site could have international significance.
• There isn’t enough data to support archaeological modeling; there is no baseline for prehistoric site data.
• The weighting scheme is heavily subjective.
• Certain data may be lost or blurred as a result of the composite layering.
• How will CUEM allow for moveable timeframes/temporal components for each resource, since human activities in particular will continue to change?
5.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS The workshop provided an opportunity for BOEM and other Federal agencies, as well as the
interested public, to discuss key questions about offshore wind development with scientists and regulators from Europe, who have direct experience. Participation during the workshop of individuals representing five of the six European countries with operating offshore wind energy facilities enabled BOEM to compare and contrast strategies for managing the stewardship of environmental and archaeological resources on the OCS. The format of the workshop allowed for an interactive opportunity to fully discuss, beyond the initial questions posed, the lessons learned from the experience of European colleagues in siting, permitting, developing, and operating offshore wind energy projects. BOEM was particularly interested in understanding what data collection efforts and analyses have been useful (or, by contrast, ineffectual) in the prediction and confirmation of environmental and resource impacts from offshore wind development in Europe. As a result of the workshop, it is hoped that valuable European experiences may be repeated in the U.S. While much was learned and is already presented in the sections above, the most important lesson was that we must maintain the lines of communication and continue to learn from each other as wind development progresses into new areas, with new technologies.
Appendix A
Agenda
Please note that the times (other than start and end times) are flexible and subject to change.
Workshop Overview Agenda Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization:
Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience
February 26 -‐ 28, 2013 Workshop Purpose: To learn from both the challenges and successes of Europe’s experiences with pre-‐ and post-‐construction site evaluations, and further BOEM’s development of clear requirements and guidance for offshore
wind energy in the United States.
Monday, February 25, 2013
4:30 – 5:30 pm Early Registration for participants arriving at the hotel on Monday. (outside of the Grand Ballroom, Salons B/C)
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
8:00-‐9:00 am Registration (outside of the Grand Ballroom, Salons B/C) NOTE: Coffee and tea will be provided at the meeting; hotel guests receive complimentary breakfast in the dining area.
9:00-‐9:15 Plenary Session: Welcome and Opening Remarks Ned Farquhar, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Interior
• Welcome to invited guests and participants
9:15-‐9:30 Plenary Session: Overview of Workshop Purpose and Goals Dr. Mary Boatman, BOEM Workshop Organizer
• Introduction/background on the workshop goals
9:30-‐10:15 Plenary Session: Overview of European Wind Energy Regulatory Framework and Current Status Beverley Walker, BlueWind Consulting LTD, United Kingdom
• Europe’s range of offshore wind energy programs (a synthesis)
10:30-‐11:15 Plenary Session: Overview of US Wind Energy Regulatory Framework and Current Status Maureen Bornholdt, Program Manager, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, BOEM
• BOEM offshore wind energy program
Facilitated Q&A
BOEM February 26 – 28, 2013 Workshop Agenda
Please note that the times (other than start and end times) may be subject to change.
11:15 – 11:30 Overview of Afternoon Breakout Session Agendas and Directions Abby Arnold, Facilitator
• Each technical track (Avian, Benthic Habitat, and Cultural/Archaeological) will follow a slightly different format. Please see more detailed agendas specific to each breakout session for more information. These sessions will meet during the afternoon of Day One and all of Day Two. On Day Three, please reconvene in plenary.
11:30 – 1:00 pm Lunch (on your own)
1:00 -‐ 5:00 (including break)
Facilitated Breakout Sessions Please see breakout session agendas for more information.
v Avian Track (Salon C) v Benthic Habitat Track (Salon B) v Cultural/Archaeological Track (Reagan National/Dulles)
Dinner (on your own)
Wednesday, February 27, 2012
9:00 – 11:45 am Facilitated Breakout Sessions Continued Please see breakout session agendas for more information.
11:45 -‐ 1:00 pm Lunch (on your own)
1:00 -‐ 4:30 Facilitated Breakout Sessions Continued At the end of the session, the Facilitator will review the agenda and format for Day Three’s Plenary session.
Dinner (on your own)
Thursday, February 28, 2012
9:00–9:15 am Brief Overview of Purpose, Agenda, and Format for Day Three (Facilitator) Participants sit at round tables with others from their breakout groups (tables will be marked). There will be about 3 tables for each breakout group, and participants may sit anywhere at those tables.
9:15 -‐ 10:15 Presentation on Cumulative Use Evaluation Model (CUEM) • Followed by facilitated Q&A
10:15 – 11:15 (including break)
Group Discussions At their tables, participants address the following questions ( volunteers from each table will report out on main points from discussions):
• How would you come up with the data inputs to this model/map, for your technical track?
BOEM February 26 – 28, 2013 Workshop Agenda
Please note that the times (other than start and end times) may be subject to change.
• If this data is not sufficiently representative of the resource distribution, what would you do to proceed to fill the gaps or move forward?
11:15 – 12:00 pm Report-‐out and Plenary Discussion • Volunteers from each table summarize their responses to the questions • Facilitated plenary discussion
12:00 – 12:15 Closing Remarks
12:15 Adjourn
Appendix B
Participants
BOEM Workshop Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization:
Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience
February 26-28, 2013 Herndon, VA
FINAL PARTICIPANT LIST
Justin Allegro National Wildlife Federation [email protected] Taber Allison American Wind Wildlife Institue [email protected] Abby Arnold Kearns & West [email protected] Martin Attrill Plymouth University Marine Institute [email protected] Paul Baggaley Wessex Archaeology [email protected] Dave Ball Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Jonathan Benjamin Wessex Archaeology [email protected] David Bigger Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Jan Blew BioConsultant SH Germany [email protected] Philip Bloor Pelagica [email protected] Mary Boatman Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected]
Gregory Boland Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Arjen Boon Deltares [email protected] Douglas Boren Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Maureen Bornholdt Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Marcia Bowen Nomandeau [email protected] Jocelyn Brown-Saracino Department of Energy [email protected] Algene Byrum Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Brandi Carrier Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Stefan Claesson Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. [email protected] Jørgen Dencker The Viking Ship Museum, Rosklide, Maritime Archaeology [email protected] Sjoerd Dirksen Bureau Waardenburg [email protected]
Courtney Dohoney Ecology and Environment, Inc. [email protected] Amanda Evans Tesla Offshore [email protected] Ned Farquhar Department of Interior [email protected] Michael Faught Panamerican Consultants/ Archaeological Research Cooperative [email protected] Jeremy Firestone University of Delaware [email protected] Antony Firth Fjordr Limited [email protected] Deborah French McCay RPS ASA [email protected] Stephen Geiger Arcadia Wind [email protected] Caleb Gordon Normandeau [email protected] Callie Hall Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Doug Harris NITHPO [email protected] Jennifer Harris Ecology & Environment [email protected] William Hoffman Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Brian Hooker Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected]
Christy Johnson-Hughes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Brian Jordan Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Joshua Kaplowitz Crowell & Moring [email protected] Aileen Kenney Deepwater Wind [email protected] Eric Kershner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Elana Kimbrell Kearns & West [email protected] John King University of Rhode Island [email protected] Michael Krivor Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. [email protected] Rich Langton National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [email protected] Emily Lindow Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Roberto J. Llanso Versar, Inc. [email protected] David Lockledge [email protected] Chris Long American Wind Energy Association [email protected] Scott Lundin ESS Group, Inc. [email protected]
John Madsen University of Delaware [email protected] Tom McNeilan Fugro [email protected] Jolly McQuilliams Department of the Interior Thomas Merck The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation [email protected] Mark Monaco National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [email protected] James Moore Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Michelle Morin Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Tim Mundon Kleinschmidt [email protected] Ida Namur URS Corporation [email protected] Carl Nielsen ESS Group, Inc. [email protected] Darrell Oakley ESS Group, Inc. [email protected] Terry Orr ESS Group, Inc. [email protected] Steve O’Malley Fishermen’s Energy [email protected] David Panzer Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected]
Christopher Pater English Heritage [email protected] Bryony Pearce Gardline Caledonia Limited [email protected] Kevin Pearce Arcadia Wind [email protected] J.B. Pelletier URS Corporation [email protected] Steve Pelletier Stantec [email protected] David Pereksta Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Simon Perkins NoticeNature Consulting [email protected] Ib Krag Petersen Aarhus University, Department of Bioscience [email protected] Doug Pfeister Offshore Wind Development Coalition [email protected] Mike Rasser Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected] Danielle Reich RPS ASA [email protected] Jeff Reidenauer URS Corporation [email protected] Chris Rein ESS Group, Inc. [email protected] David Robinson University of Rhode Island [email protected]
Jill Rowe RPS ASA [email protected] Jennifer Samson National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [email protected] Harold W. Slacum Versar, Inc. [email protected] Sally McNeilan Fugro [email protected] Melanie Steinkamp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Todd Stribley Department of Energy [email protected] Dale Strickland Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. [email protected] Chris Taylor National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [email protected] Heather Thomson University of Delaware [email protected] Susan Tuxbury National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [email protected] Gero Vella RES Offshore [email protected] Beverley Walker BlueWind Consulting, Ltd. [email protected] Kieran Westley University of Ulster [email protected]
Tom Wilding Scottish Association for Marine Science [email protected] Kathryn Williams Biodiversity Research Institute [email protected] Stephanie Wilson ESS Group, Inc. [email protected] Jim Woehr Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [email protected]
Appendix C
Plenary Presentations
7/26/2013
1
Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization: Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience
Workshop Purpose and Goals
Mary C. Boatman, Ph.D.Environmental Studies Chief
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
2
Purpose and Goal
To learn from both the challenges and successes of Europe’s experiences with pre‐ and post‐construction site evaluations, and further BOEM’s development of clear requirements and guidance for offshore wind energy in the United States.
7/26/2013
2
• Collecting information, both regional and site specific
• Still in the pre‐construction stage, but…
• Guidelines for developers
• Focus on three areas
– Avian
– Benthic Habitat
– Archaeology
3
Setting the Stage
4
Avian Breakout Session
• Experience and Hindsight
• Planning and Siting Criteria
• Monitoring
• Data and Data Collection
7/26/2013
3
• Habitat Classification
• Pre‐Construction Surveys
• Post‐Construction Monitoring
• Predictive Modeling
• Habitat Vulnerability
Benthic Habitats Breakout Session
• Comparison of U.S. and international regulatory and commercial planning for the purposes of preventing impacts to archaeological resources.
• Mitigation strategies for impacts to cultural resources from international offshore wind farms
• Identification of submerged archaeological sites
• Development of standards for direct sampling
Archaeology Breakout Session
7/26/2013
4
• Cumulative Use Evaluation Model
• Combining ecological considerations with human use
• Geographic Information System (GIS) based
• Under evaluation for potential uses
7
Cumulative Model
7/26/2013
1
Overview of the Regulatory Framework for Offshore Wind Development
in the United States
Maureen BornholdtProgram Manager
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
• Government Structures in the United States
• Laws and Executive Orders
• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
• Regulatory Process
• Current Status
• Guidelines2
Overview
7/26/2013
2
President
Department of
the Interior
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
United States Geological Survey
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defense
Department of the Navy
US Army Corps of Engineers
Department of
the Air Force
Department of Homeland Security
US Coast Guard
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Other Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
United States Federal Government
3
State Governments
Maine
Coastal Zone Management Program
Public Utilities Commission
Department of Conservation
Department of Marine Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office
Department of Energy Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Public Utilities
Department of Marine Fisheries
Environmental Policy Act Office
Rhode Island
Office of Energy Resources
Public Utilities Commission
Coastal Resources Management Council
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Public Service
Energy Planning Board
Energy Research and Development Authority
New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of the Rate Council
Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of the Public Advocate
Office of State Planning
Coordination
Public Service Commission
Maryland
Department of Business and Economic
Development
Department of Environment
Department of General Services, Office of Energy
Projects
Department of Labor, Licensing, and
Regulation
Department of Natural Resources
Energy Administration
Virginia
Coastal Zone Management Program
Department of Business Assistance
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy
North Carolina
State Environmental Review Clearing
House
Department of Commerce
Department of Environment &
Natural Resources
7/26/2013
3
Passamaquoddy PenobscotWampanoag
Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)
Mashpee Wampanoag
Narragansett Indian Tribe
Shinnecock Indian Nation
5
Tribal Governments
• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Endangered Species Act
• Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
• Marine Protection, Research, & Sanctuaries Act
• National Marine Sanctuaries Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• E.O. 13186 (Migratory Birds)
• Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• National Historic Preservation Act
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act
• Federal Aviation Act
• Federal Power Act
• E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice)
• Ports and Waterways Safety Act
• Marking of Obstructions
Applicable Laws & Executive Orders
7/26/2013
4
7
• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953
• Energy Policy Act of 2005 – Section 388(a)
– Amends the OCSLA by adding Section 8(p)(1)(C) and (D)
– OCS renewable energy development and alternate use of existing infrastructure (i.e. “other than oil and gas and covered by other legislation”)
– Regulations at 30 CFR Parts 250 and 285
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
• Coordinatewith federal, state, and local agencies, tribal governments, and stakeholders
• Apply our renewable energy regulatory framework in conjunction with interagency‐led planning activities
• Focus on multiple‐use
• Work within the current authorities and responsibilities of agencies and continue ongoing activities
Program Philosophy
7/26/2013
5
• Affected State, local, & tribal governments and federal agencies participate (12 Task Forces)
– Does not replace consultation under existing federal laws and regulations
• Forum to:
– Educate each other about permitting and statutory responsibilities, and stakeholders’ issues
– Exchange data about biological and physical resources, uses, and priorities
– Continue dialogue about renewable energy activities throughout the leasing process
• BOEM considers task force input in our renewable energy program decisions
Intergovernmental Task Forces
Planning and Analysis
Lease or Grant
Site Assessment
Commercial Development
Stages of Renewable Energy Program
7/26/2013
6
11
Planning and Analysis
•BOEM engages with the Intergovernmental Task Forces to identify priority Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) offshore. WEAs are locations that appear most suitable for wind energy development
•BOEM prepares an Environmental Assessment for Lease or Grant Issuance and Site Assessment Activities
Lease or Grant
•BOEM notifies the public and developers of its intent to lease through Sale Notices
•BOEM determines whether Competitive Interest exists
•If Competitive Interest exists,BOEM holds a lease or grant auction
•If Competitive Interest does not Exist, BOEM negotiates a lease
Site Assessment
•Lessee conducts site characterization studies
•Lessee submits Site Assessment Plan (SAP)
•BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of SAP, eventually deciding to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the SAP
•If approved, Lessee assesses site (usually with meteorological tower(s) and/or buoy(s)
Construction and Operations
•Lessee may conduct additional site characterization
•Lessee submits Construction and Operations Plan (COP)
•BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of COP, eventually deciding to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the COP
•If approved, Lessee builds wind farm
Process for Commercial Lease Issuance (30 CFR 585)
• Serve as lead Federal Agency for environmental compliance reviews under NEPA (will use cooperating agency agreements)
• Complete all required consultations (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act)
• Document compliance with the Federal consistency provisions of CZMA
• Assure compliance with all other applicable laws
• MOUs with DOE, FWS, NOAA (Working on agreements with DOD, USACE, and USCG)
• Recently updated joint BOEM/FERC guidelines for marine hydrokinetic developers
Consultation & Coordination
7/26/2013
7
• Regional scale – ecosystem
• Wind Energy Area scale – leasing
• Site specific – construction and operation
14
Scientific Information
7/26/2013
8
• Environmental Studies Program
• Technology Assessment and Research Program
• Partnering with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Energy (DOE), and States
• Participation in International Energy Agency (IEA) Annex Efforts
• Industry
Research and Study Efforts
• Guidelines for Providing Geological and Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585 (11‐09‐2012)
• Guidelines for Providing Avian Survey Information for Renewable Energy Development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585 (2‐1‐2013)
• Guidelines for Submission of Spatial Data for Atlantic Offshore Renewable Energy Development Site Characterization Surveys (2‐1‐2013)
• Guidelines for Providing Benthic Habitat Survey Information for Renewable Energy Development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585 (2‐15‐2013)
Guidance Documents
7/26/2013
9
• Provide information as we implement our guidelines
• Learn what is most useful
• Learn what has not been most useful
17
Workshop Outcomes
7/29/2013
1
www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
The European Experience
Beverley Walker
Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and ScreeningBOEM 2nd Atlantic Workshop26th – 28th February 2013
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`
Setting the Scene
Background to Europe and the EU
A Common Regulatory Framework – Relevant Directives
The Renewables Directive – what it means for Offshore Wind
Key Challenges for Europe
The Site Screening and Selection process
Lessons Learnt
Next Steps
www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Contents
7/29/2013
2
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Setting the Scene
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Background to the EU
Originally known as the EEC (European Economic Community) – set up to establish an equal economic trading ground
Member states found to have significant inequality in terms of environmental protection = unfair economic advantage
Strong relationship between pollution and poverty
>700 Directives since the establishment of the EEC/EU
+250 Directives related to environment
What is a Directive?
A directive is a legislative act which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures.
7/29/2013
3
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Key Directives (Offshore Wind) – A Common Framework
1. The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive
2. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
3. Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 2000 Network)
4. Aarhus Convention
5. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Directive)
6. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA Directive)
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`
European Energy Policy
Legally binding targets for CO2 emission reduction by 2020 (20%).
Renewable Energy Directive
Sets binding targets on member states based on capacity, but such that target renewable energy mix of 15% (total 20% for EU) by 2020, with an individual binding target for the Transport sector of 10%
It also improves the legal framework for promoting renewable electricity, requires National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPS) to set the RE mix, the target objectives and why.
www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
Targets are extremely challenging – require unprecedented rate of growth in new sectors
7/29/2013
4
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
The Renewable Energy Directive
National targets
2005 2020 Offshore Wind
Belgium 2.2 % 13 % ????c
Denmark 17.0 % 30 %
Germany 5.8 % 18 %
Ireland 3.1 % 16 %
France 10.3 % 23 %
Netherlands 2.4 % 14 %
Sweden 39.8 % 49 %
United Kingdom
1.3 % 15 %
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Cumulative Offshore Wind Capacity 1991 – 2010 (pre‐ Directive)
7/29/2013
5
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Cumulative Offshore Wind Capacity 2011 – 2020 (Post Directive)
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Share of installed capacity in 2010
7/29/2013
6
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
‐ Offshore Wind 2020
Total Offshore Wind Capacity Targets 2020
UK
Denmark
The Netherlands
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
Norway
Offshore Wind Energy UK
Offshore Wind Energy – 33GW by 2020
7/29/2013
7
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Meeting the Challenge
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Offshore Wind in Europe – The Challenges
1
• Leadership, accountability and resourcing
2• Constructive development of the supply chain
3• Increase grid capacity and availability
4• Optimising governmental input and permitting systems
5• Enable economic and financial feasibility
The single most significant challenge for the installation of renewable energy in Europe is the time frame to meet targets. This requires mobilization of all elements of the sector at an unparalleled pace
•Improvement in Technology
•Driving costs down
7/29/2013
8
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Economics
The costs of offshore wind power are currently too high compared to other carbon free solutions
High upfront capital costs and relatively low operational costs. Typical capital expenditure per MW has increased significantly, from EUR 1.5 – 2.0 million per MW ( 2005) to around EUR 3.0 – 3.5 million per MW (2009)
Increased water depth impacting the size and type of support structures and installation
Increased distance to shore requiring longer transmission cables
Increase distance to shore = vessel time and risk (from survey to construction)
Lack of competition and supply chain bottlenecks
Increasing raw material costs and currency fluctuations
A stable, long term, attractive economic support mechanism is required
Keeping up to date with these economic mechanisms and how they vary from country to country presents a major challenge for developers and investors.
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Financing
Financial crisis has had a very different impact on the two sectors active in developing offshore wind farms – utilities and independent project developers.
Projects stalled because:
The lack of precedent for the offshore wind industry is curtailing the banks’ appetite for the sector and they are taking a more conservative approach to lending; and
the reluctance of banks to commit to any significant underwriting of loans leads to difficulty in financing the deals necessary for large offshore wind farms
These have had a significant impact in the target schedule
7/29/2013
9
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Supply Chain
Insufficient turbine manufacturing capacity to provide the volume of turbines
that will be required for the worldwide offshore wind market
This requirement is now predicted to equate to an additional 5,500 to 7,000
offshore turbines and all the other supporting elements..
Limited competition and bottlenecks caused by shortage of component parts
for turbines, vessels, cables, yards and harbours,
Skills shortage predicted with offshore experience, leading to inadequate
delivery.
Skills shortage causing salary level rises. Skills also in competition with O&G
Supply chain issues are currently perceived as the most significant factor
which would cause delays to future targets.
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Grid Connection
A point to point connection system will be unwieldy for the scale of growth
Connecting individual projects to shore could be very expensive and would require individual approval for cable routes, landfall and onshore connection; unnecessarily duplicating the efforts of other developers.
A more strategic approach to connection and a new transmission regime is required which is flexible enough to allow for an offshore wind hub or offshore network.
Must be onshore infrastructure in place to support growth offshore
Transmission capacity must be made available in quantities that avoid delay or abandonment.
7/29/2013
10
European Supergrid – feasible 2009
7/29/2013
11
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Optimising governmental input and permitting systems
Consensus throughout Europe ‐ a need for governmental and regulatory reform
‘leadership, accountability and resourcing’ being identified as a high priority.
‘unprecedented strategic leadership and cross‐departmental commitment’ to ensure central consideration for all department and agencies involved in the planning process,
The requirement to optimise the consenting/permitting system to deliver sustainable, consistent and timely decisions.
As marine spatial planning is rolled out under the requirements of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) there is a recognised danger that spatial conflict could lead to entrenched fighting for access to the sea by different interest/user groups
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Site Screening and Selection
The Regulatory Toolbox
Marine Spatial Planning
Habitats and Birds Directives
SEA
EIA
A Common Framework
These Directives are important because they define the objectives and common principles for environmental protection for all EU member states when developing offshore wind
The regulatory approach and consent mechanisms may be different – how does each country balance uncertainty vstarget dates
7/29/2013
12
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Aarhus Convention
The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision‐making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, usually
known as the Aarhus Convention, 1998.
Aims are to ..’further the accountability of and the transparency in decision‐making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment.”
Links environmental protection with Human Rights
Is intended to ensure that environmental regulation occurs at the level of the citizen (ie environmental democracy)
Three pillars
Right of access to environmental information
Right to public participation in decision making (SEA/EIA‐PPD)
Access to environmental justice (3rd party right of appeal)
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Habitats & Birds Directives – Nature 2000 Marine Network
7/29/2013
13
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
SEA Directive 2001/42/EC – “The assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment”
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a system/process of incorporating environmental considerations into policies, plans and programmes.
Triggered when a policy, plan or programme will lead to a requirement for EIA
Will be strongly linked to Marine Spatial Planning
Objectives of SEA
To ensure environmental issues are considered within decision making
To allows the setting of transparent objectives
To allow for adequate assessment of alternatives;
To ensure that all related policies and plans are not conflicting;
To enable a systematic impact assessment process;
To enable predictions to be refined and improved by a monitoring programme.
To ensure sustainability objectives are integrated into decision making.
It is also a fundamental vehicle for the delivery of the 2nd pillar of the Aarhus Convention (early public participation)
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
EIA
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
Seen as one of the most potent tools for establishing equality between member states with regard to environmental regulation;
Reviewed every 5 years in terms of application and effectiveness
Continuously evolving in terms of scope, technical quality, but also purpose and objectives
EIA amended 3 times to date, including the integration of the Public Participation Directive (PPD)
EIA and SEA is regarded as one of the tools to integrate the Aarhus Convention and to develop the human right – ‘right to a clean environment’
Direct Effect
7/29/2013
14
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
Direct Effect
EIA is one of the few Directives with Direct Effect
Direct Effect is a principle of European Community Law according to which certain pieces of European legislation are enforceable by citizens of the Member States and the results of case law are directly applicable to all.
Hence complaints can be made directly to the European Court of Justice
Complaint by Issue Implications for the offshore sector
X
X
X
x
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Site Screening and Selection
7/29/2013
15
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Site Screening and Selection
Combination of developer methodology, SEA and marine spatial planning
Early search areas which only focused on physical /buildability constraints have stalled or failed due to environmental and socio‐economic factors becoming apparent later.
Early heat mapping protocols have helped to identify environmental and physical constraints for site screening and selection
Sectoral SEA’s helped integrate environmental and socio‐economic aspects with effective public consultation, however must now be placed in context with marine spatial planning and other users of the sea
Ideally once set up and top down, reduces repetitive consultation and consultation fatigue
Eg: 8 year consent strategy identified 28 consultation exercises within 2 years needed before submission of scoping
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Marine Spatial Planning –
7/29/2013
16
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Marine Spatial Planning
National Marine Plan to include marine ecosystems objectives along with economic and social objectives
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (MPZ’s in the UK)
Will form part of a network of sites in the marine environment that will also include marine elements of the Naturanetwork, Ramsar sites, and Sites of Specific Scientific Interest.
Will not be exclusion and/or ‘no take’ zones
Regional areas currently being consulted on – targeting areas of potential sensitivity and user conflict
The area covered by basking shark case study (insert box) and the Skye to Mull search location boundary (blue line) as presented at the 4th MPA workshop
1. Physical barriers e.g. barriers to species movement2. Collision damage e.g. death or injury from boat collisions3. Physical loss/damage e.g. removal of non-target species
from entanglement/bycatch
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Marine Spatial Planning – Site area of concern
7/29/2013
17
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Marine Spatial Planning – Cumulative Use
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
EIA and Consenting
Different from State to State
Case Law affecting way regulators operate
Precautionary vsProportional
7/29/2013
18
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
The Rochdale Principle (UK Case Law)
Supports projects where the final design is not available at the consent application stage.
Allows the developer to put forward the range of options being considered ‐ environmental impact assessment is made on the ‘worse case’ for each environmental receptor.
Enables the legal requirements of the relevant EIA regulations to be complied with, provided appropriate conditions are placed in the resulting consents to ensure that the ‘worst case’ likely impacts will not be exceeded.
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
Turbine size and power
Arrays
Foundation Design
Offshore Substations
Cable Arrays
Deployment and Installation Methods
Secondary Impacts – eg transortation networks, location of supply ports etc
Types of Technology Changes
7/29/2013
19
Turbine Technology
structural components
maximum hub height maximum rotor diameter
operational parameters
rotor speed noise emission
Technology Changes – Turbines
Sensitive Environmental ParametersDIRECT• Ornithology• Navigation, Aviation and Radar• Seascape / Visual ImpactsINDIRECT• Array size / footprint• Installation and Deployment Methods • Programme
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
Density
Collision risks Barrier effects
Number (footprint)
Project Area
Technology Changes = Change in Array Layout
Sensitive Environmental ParametersDIRECT• Ornithology• Physical Processes • Benthic Ecology• LVIAINDIRECT• Water Quality and Ecological effects• Navigation / H&S Risk• Marine mammals• Hearing Sensitive Fish Species• Programme
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
7/29/2013
20
Monopile
Gravity Base
Tripod
Technology Changes – Foundation Design
Sensitive Environmental ParametersDIRECT• Benthic Ecology• Sediment Disturbance • Construction Methods – Subsea Acoustic NoiseINDIRECT• Water Quality and ecological effects• Marine mammals• Hearing Sensitive Fish Species• Programme
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
Substation Electricals
Size Number Power Up = fewer
Cable Array Design
Serial Hub
Technology Changes – Substation Electricals & Cable Array
Sensitive Environmental ParametersDIRECT• Benthic Ecology• Sea‐time ‘Disturbance’• EMR – Skates, Rays and Sharks• Commercial FishingINDIRECT• Shipping & Navigation risk• Health & Safety Risk• Operations and maintenance • Programme
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
7/29/2013
21
Larger turbines
Tonnage – bespoke cranes and equipment
Port hardstand reinforcement Installation method – eg
onshore vs offshore assembly
Number (sea time)
Project Area
Technology Changes – Impacts on Deployment & Installation Methods
Sensitive Environmental ParametersDIRECT• Ornithology• Physical Processes • Benthic Ecology• LVIAINDIRECT• Water Quality and Ecological effects• Navigation / H&S Risk• Marine mammals• Hearing Sensitive Fish Species• Programme
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
)
Photo: © Yobidaba | Dreamstime
7/29/2013
22
This envelope could
Technology Changes – Impacts on Deployment & Installation Methods
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
Technology Changes – Impacts on Deployment & Installation Methods
• Staff Transfer Issues
• Potential transboundary assessment required
• Secondary impact – socio‐economic effects
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
7/29/2013
23
Consenting Offshore Renewables
•Introduction•Setting the Scene•Principle Legislation•Secondary Legislation•England and Wales (and the IPC?)•Scotland•Future Energy
Nine outline principles for CIA in OWFs1. Proportionality
2. Reasonable Foreseeability
3. Broad Participation
4. Early, pragmatic scoping
5. Historic and future baselines
6. Embrace uncertainty and precaution
7. Emphasise development of sustainability themes
8. Building knowledgeable institutions
9. Survey data as a common resource
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Marine Planning – Cumulative Use
Cumulative Impact AssessmentRenewable UK and Offshore Developer Working Groups currently working together to develop nine outline principles for CIA in OWFs
1. Proportionality
2. Reasonable Foreseeability
3. Broad Participation
4. Early, pragmatic scoping
5. Historic and future baselines
6. Embrace uncertainty and precaution
7. Emphasise development of sustainability themes
8. Building knowledgeable institutions
9. Survey data as a common resource
Issues with EIA – Managing Uncertainty
7/29/2013
24
Offshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and Screening
`www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk`
Summary – Current Key Issues for Europe
Managing the Uncertainty
Wide range of Technology (turbines and foundations)
Secondary and Indirect Impacts (eg port of entry/transport/construction methods)
Programme Type of Mitigation Inconsistency of approach/method Complex = difficult for consultation? No sensitivity weighting
Cumulative Impact Assessment
Cumulative worse case or realistic case?
Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) –are we in or out of Natura sites
Need for Adaptive Monitoring
BOEM 2nd Atlantic WorkshopOffshore Wind Energy Site Assessment and ScreeningWashington DC 25‐28th February 2013
`
Questions?
Beverley Walker(Director)
BlueWind Consulting Ltd
29/3 Comely Bank RoadEDINBURGH, Scotland UK
EH4 1DS
+44 (0)7808157422
www.bluewindconsulting.co.uk
7/29/2013
25
)
Futuristic Wind‐turbine Farms (Image Via: cnngo.com)
Offshore Aerogenerator NOVA (Novel Offshore Vertical Axis) ‐ Objective 1 GW of power by 2020. Photograph: Grimshaw architects
7/29/2013
26
)
Open Hyro – Emec test facilities in Scotland
)
Sub‐sea Kite Turbines
7/29/2013
27
)
Futuristic Wind‐turbines)
The Cumulative Use Evaluation Model (CUEM) Framework
BOEM Contract M10PC00097 Dr. Deborah French McCay and Danielle Reich RPS ASA, South Kingstown, RI USA [email protected]
Presentation Outline
Introduction to the Cumulative Use Evaluation Model (CUEM)
Cumulative Impact Model – Ecological (CIM-Eco) Framework Overview
Cumulative Impact Model – Human Use (CIM-HU) Framework Overview
Limitations and Challenges
Moving Forward
2
Introduction to the Cumulative Use Evaluation Model (CUEM)
Developed for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program under funding from BOEM
– Project Name: Developing Environmental Protocols and Modeling Tools to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship
– with University of RI
Expands on the ecological value model developed by RPS ASA for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (RI Ocean SAMP)
Objectives: – Develop a new conceptual framework and approach for a cumulative
environmental impact evaluation of offshore renewable energy development, considering both ecological values and human uses 3
Cumulative Use Evaluation Model (CUEM): Basic Structure
Consists of two indices based on ecological and human use values, scaled by relative potential impact of development:
– Cumulative Impact Model – Ecological (CIM-Eco)
– Cumulative Impact Model – Human Use (CIM-HU)
Intended uses of the CUEM: – Identification of areas most suitable for facility siting (from an ecological
and human use value perspective)
– Evaluation of the relative impacts of an offshore development considering ecological and human use values
– Evaluate cumulative impacts of multiple and competing uses
– Help inform and make transparent the analysis of alternatives pursuant to NEPA
4
5
CIM-Eco Framework: Overview
Integrates various ecological data categories (e.g., birds, fish, benthic ecosystem) into Ecological Value Models (EVMs)
Applies weighting factors to composite all the EVMs into an Ecological Value Index (EVI); and
Develop and apply weighting factors to modify the ecological category weights in the EVI based on the potential impacts of development, resulting in a Cumulative Impact Model (CIM-Eco)
6
7
CIM-Eco Framework: Data Inputs
Includes the following categories:
– Benthic Ecosystem
– Pelagic Ecosystem
– Birds
– Marine Mammals
– Sea Turtles
– Fish and Invertebrates
– Bats
8
Data for each category are continuous topologies based on measures of aggregation
– Density, contribution to fitness, productivity, rarity, or uniqueness of attributes
– Normalized, so on a relative scale; an index
Example: Pelagic production offshore Rhode Island
9
CIM-Eco Framework: Weighting Schemes
Each weighting scheme is on 1 to 10 scale (1= no additional weight, 10 = highest additional weight)
Fish and Wildlife Layers: – Proportional importance to regional/global scale
– Resource and protection status
– Data robustness
Benthic and Pelagic Ecosystem Layers: – Ecosystem component productivity
– Data robustness
All Category Layers: – Relative potential impact of development
10
Weighting Schemes: Proportional Importance to Regional/global Scale
10 – Distribution endemic to study area
8 – Distribution endemic to the study area’s Ecoregion
6 – Distribution covers only a subset of the study area’s Province
4 – Distribution covers only a subset of the study area’s Realm
2 – Distribution throughout the study area’s Realm
1 – Global distribution
CMECS definitions:
– Realm – a very large region across which biota are coherent at higher taxonomic levels.
– Province – large areas where distinct biota have some cohesion over evolutionary time due to distinctive abiotic features.
– Ecoregion – areas of relatively homogenous species composition, clearly distinct from adjacent systems.
11
Weighting Schemes: Resource and Protection Status 10 – Listed as endangered at the federal level
9 – Listed as endangered at the state level
8 – Listed as threatened at the federal level
7 – Listed as threatened at the state level
6 – Listed as a species of concern at the federal level, a candidate species for listing, or afforded special protection under regulations other than the Endangered Species Act (e.g., MMPA, MBTA)
5 – Listed as a species of concern at the state level or a candidate species for listing
4 - Not listed, but at low population size relative to historical levels
3 - Not listed, but decreased or decreasing population size
2 - Not listed, at approximately historical population size
1 - Not listed, highly abundant compared to historical levels
12
Weighting Schemes: Ecosystem Component Productivity
13
Weighting Schemes: Data Robustness
Define values based on relative relationship between data sources used
Factors to consider in applying weighting: – What is the sampling resolution (spatially and temporally)?
– How many years of data are included?
– How frequently were the data collected?
– What methods were used to create a continuous surface?
14
Weighting Schemes: Relative Potential Impact of Development
10 – Major adverse impact
8 – Moderate-major adverse impact
6 – Moderate adverse impact
4 – Minor-moderate adverse impact
2 – Minor adverse impact
1 – No adverse impact
Other NOPP deliverables are intended to be used as a guide in applying this weighting:
– Task 1.2 Offshore Renewable Energy Effect Matrix
– Task 1.5 Effects Decision Tree 15
16
CIM-Eco Calculator
17
CIM-HU Framework: Overview
Would follow same general procedure/calculations as for the CIM-Eco framework
Includes the following categories (at a minimum): – Cultural Resources
– Fishing and Aquaculture
– Commercial Traffic
– Recreational Boating
– Other Marine Recreational Areas (e.g., scuba diving sites)
– Department of Defense Use Areas
– Dredge Spoil Areas
– Existing Infrastructure (pipelines, telecommunications, energy facilities, etc.)
18
CIM-HU Framework: Data Inputs
Data could consist of: – Continuous topologies (e.g., maps of gridded fisheries landings
data, ship traffic density, maps resulting from an Archaeological Sensitivity Analysis)
– Delineated features (e.g., existing submarine pipelines, dredge spoil areas, artificial reefs)
Example: Submerged shipwrecks offshore Rhode Island
19
20 Mather et al., URI
21 Mather et al., URI
CIM-HU Framework: Weighting Schemes
Relative Importance – Could be assigned based on management priorities, stakeholder
input, or economic measures of value (e.g., willingness-to-pay, travel cost, consumer surplus, commercial revenues or profits)
Regulatory Protection Status – Would add further weight to components that have an additional
regulatory protection (e.g., cultural resources)
Data Robustness
Relative Potential Impact of Development
22
CUEM Limitations & Challenges: Data Inputs (Outline)
Data completeness and quality – Robustness, standardization, completeness – Scope
• Missing components
Issues of scale
Generation of continuous topologies – Spreading methodologies (modeling, Kriging) – Patchy data shows as highs and lows – influential
23
Data Completeness and Quality Model requires continuous topologies for broad scale
coastal zones
Sampling coverage needed to represent broad-scale study areas is often unavailable and costly/infeasible to obtain
– Particularly for highly migratory species
Data inputs are typically pulled from a variety of sources – Can include multiple studies with varying scope, methodologies,
and objectives
– Challenging to standardize these datasets so they can be combined in a meaningful way
Data may not exist for particular ecosystem components (e.g., bats)
24
Issues of Scale
Scale heavily influences results
Scale of analysis must be appropriate for geographic scale of, and processes affecting, the resource
– Migratory species with large geographic ranges (e.g., whales, turtles, birds) – need to consider larger area
Example: North Atlantic Right Whale distribution offshore
Rhode Island
25
27
Ecological Value Map (all data)
Ecological Value Map (marine mammals & turtle data excluded)
28
Generation of Continuous Topologies Available data are typically highly variable, patchy,
collected for another purpose and/or focused on a particular area of concern
Modeling data layers based on spatial interpolation is one way to create a continuous surface
– Can be difficult to do with data not collected specifically for geospatial spreading (less statistically robust, can lead to artifacts)
Method used can heavily influence the result and create unreliable information and biases
Example: Greater shearwater distribution offshore Rhode Island
29
31
32
Moving Forward…
Focus to date has been on development of the CIM-Eco component of the model
– CIM-HU component needs further development prior to application of the CUEM model
Main limitation to model application is developing high quality data for large geographic areas
– Standardizing data collection would allow broad-scale analyses or even regional comparisons
– Develop modeling techniques for generating topologies
Weighting schemes currently employed the study are considered exploratory, and could be modified to integrate stakeholder input or other factors
33
Potential Techniques for Developing Topologies…
Standardizing data collection – Consistent terminology
Develop modeling techniques for generating topologies – Geospatial spreading (e.g., Kriging) based on observational data
– Habitat utilization models • Indices
• Probability of occurrence models (presence/absence in habitats)
• Stratified density models (uniform animal density within each stratum )
– Spatial and temporally-varying empirical models • Habitat-based density models
• Environmental co-variates
– Wildlife movement models
34
35
36
Cumulative Use Evaluation Model (CUEM): Advantages and Challenges
Advantages for Planning and NEPA: – Measure of resource/use value is on a relative scale, can use an index
– Weightings implicitly made in any trade-off decision-making process are explicitly stated with a criteria-related basis
– Inform stakeholders
– Can incorporate stakeholder input to evaluate implications
– Decision-making process transparent and documented
– Analysis of alternatives pursuant to NEPA
– Cumulative impacts on multiple resources and uses can be evaluated
– Cumulative of multiple projects
– Compare competing uses
Challenge: Data – continuous topologies
37
Discussion
38
39
Weighting Schemes: Ecosystem Component Productivity
Productivity is evaluated based on three criteria: – What level of productivity results in the highest ecological value
– What weighting (1-10) should be applied at the highest ecological value
– What weighting (1-10) should be applied at maximum productivity
Defining these two points establishes the shape of a weighting function, which is then applied to the data
40
Weighting Schemes: Ecosystem Component Productivity
41
42
Example wildlife movement and mapping model:
• Fur seal population in the Bering Sea
• Based on life history information and behavior
• Developed spatial distributions over months in Bering Sea
• Reference: • French, D.P., M. Reed, J. Calambokidis and J. Cubbage, 1989. A
simulation model of seasonal migration and daily movements of the northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus. Ecological Modelling 48:193 219.
43
44
45
Appendix D
Avian Breakout Session Presentations
APPENDIX TO SECTION 2.0
Biographies of European Invitees
Jan Blew, BioConsult SH Jan Blew is a biologist focusing on ornithology, wildlife and databank management. He
holds an MSc in Ecology, earned in 1985. From 1990 on he worked as freelancer in Germany on databank management and programming (resting and migrating birds, wildlife and ornithology field work). Since 2005 he has been with BioConsult SH, where he focuses on bird migration and applied environmental investigations, in particular daytime and nighttime censusing and observation methods and radar ornithology. From 2005 to 2007 he led a large research project at two Danish offshore windfarms to learn and report about bird and marine mammal reactions to those wind mills. From 2008 to 2011 they conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment on a very large European infrastructure project, the 20 km link between Germany and Denmark across the Baltic Sea, either tunnel or bridge. Jan leads the migrating bird investigations. Both large projects involved using various different radars for observing bird paths and measuring bird flux in different altitudes.
Philip Bloor, Pelagica Phil Bloor has over 25 years of ornithological experience and 9 years’ experience with
offshore wind farms as both a Government regulator and an environmental consultant for the industry. For 9 years Phil worked as a Senior Environmental Manager for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). A major function of the role was the review and determination of environmental submissions submitted by the offshore wind (and oil & gas) industry. From 2004 onwards Phil was significantly involved in all offshore wind farm projects in the UK and was responsible for undertaking assessments required under the EU Habitats Regulations and undertook all Appropriate Assessments for the consented offshore wind farms in the UK.
Sjoerd Dirksen, Bureau Waardenburg Sjoerd Dirksen is an ecologist and ornithologist, working in applied research and consultancy
since 1986 after graduating from Groningen University. He is vice director of Bureau Waardenburg. Within the board of directors, his main responsibilities are with project management, business development, external relations, HSE matters and innovation. His skills as project manager are used in a few large, more complicated projects, such as on effects of wind energy on birds (both inland and offshore) and in coaching and supporting colleagues in such projects. Also smaller specialist contributions to projects are a regular issue. His involvement in studies on effects of wind energy on birds started in the early 1990s, with projects on land and a large inland lake. As part of this research track, he became a specialist in radar ornithology as well. Following wind energy from land into the seas, he has been involved in the ecological aspects of offshore wind energy in The Netherlands from the very start – the first project on selecting a location in 1997, two consecutive EIAs for OWEZ, the baseline studies at sea 2003-2005 and effect studies in the wind farm 2007 - 2012. Also, he managed projects in other
countries (Denmark, UK, Malta, Bulgaria). From 2010-2012 he was a member of the Crown Estate’s steering group SOSS (Strategic Ornithological Support Services) in the UK.
Thomas Merck, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Thomas Merck is a marine biologist and since 1993 senior scientific officer at the German
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in the unit “Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation”. The BfN is the competent authority with respect to nature conservation in the German EEZ. He is head of a BfN-working group on environmental impacts of human marine activities. Since the late 90’s, he analyses the offshore wind energy development in German waters and is familiar with the approval procedure and its legal background. He takes an active part in the development of the German offshore Standards for the Environmental Impact Assessment. These standards lay down the requirements for field studies to be conducted by the applicants aiming at providing the data needed for an Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). Part of his work is the evaluation of results from monitoring programs related to construction and operation of offshore wind farms as well as giving advice on and initiating of research projects on possible ecological impacts and respective mitigation measures.
Ib Krag Petersen, Aarhus University Ib Krag Petersen is a senior biologist and project manager at Department of Bioscience,
Aarhus University in Denmark. He is in charge of the national waterbird census, and has been closely involved in avian programmes in relation to environmental assessments of offshore wind farms in Denmark and neighboring countries. He has particularly been involved in waterbird habitat utilization in and around offshore wind farms. Bird distributions have been sampled from aircraft by the line transect method, allowing for density calculations. Spatial models have been developed to estimate surface covering density surfaces. In close collaboration with the CREEM group at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, a method to evaluate changes in bird distribution between pre- and post-wind farm construction was developed. A combination of GAM and GEE analyses was used to evaluate pre- and post-construction distribution of Long-tailed Ducks. For the last two years Ib has been in charge of monitoring marine birds in offshore wind farms in the UK, using a super high-resolution Vexcel Ultracam XP camera to create digital orthophotos with a ground resolution of 3x3 cm. Ib and Chris Topping have developed a landscape-based individual-based model for wintering Red-throated Divers in the Baltic. The aim was to evaluate the effect on the population from different planning scenarios for offshore wind farms in the region and at the same time to suggest a method to evaluate cumulative effects.
26.07.2013
1
BOEM Workshop: Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization: Evaluation of the current status and European experience.
Jan Blew, BioConsult SH
BioConsult (Georg Nehls); 20 employees, Germany• Offshore and onshore wind energy EIAs• Research and development of methods• Wadden Sea and wildlife projectsConsulting• single farmers (e.g. Montagu’s Harrier and wind mills),• small, medium and large businesses (e.g. energy providers),• regional, national and international institutions (e.g. EU)
26.07.2013
2
A: Conceptual and technical framework
B: Technical instructions…
3. Avifauna3.1. Resting and migratory birds
3.2. Bird migration and other bird movements in the survey area
C: Annex – further specifications of equipment
Rules and regulations
“… to provide as complete as is possible description of the existing environment…”
Investigation design• 2 (3) years pre-construction• 3 (5) years post-construction• project level, regional level
Non-breeding birds: • aerial surveys• 12 per year, ~2000 km², more, if e.g. divers • boat surveys• 24 per year, ~400 km²
Migrating (flying) birds• on site surveys (boat, platform)• 50 days per year• visual, acoustic, radar
Rules and regulations
26.07.2013
3
• two-engine plane
• bubble windows
Aerial surveys - resting birds and sea mammals
Aerial surveys
• Flight altitude (250 ft = 76 m), • two persons, third person in back• counts per band, recording, GPS,
time• apply DISTANCE
Aerial surveys - resting birds and sea mammals
26.07.2013
4
Boat surveys
• observer platform, radar equipment, living comfort
• transect counts (seabirds-at-sea)
Boat surveys - resting birds and sea mammals
Resting birds: Transect-design aerial and ship surveys
6°30'E
6°30'E
6°15'E
6°15'E
6°0'E
6°0'E
55°10'N 55°10'N
55°0'N 55°0'N
54°50'N 54°50'N
54°40'N 54°40'N
0 5 10 15 20
Kilometer
Legende
Flugtransekt
Schiffstransekt
Horizont SAS-Gitter noch neuer UTM
Horizont Dichtegitter UTM
Horizont Planungsgebiete
Horizont Referenzgebiet
Aerial and boat surveys
26.07.2013
5
Resting birds: spatial analyses aerial and ship surveys
Aerial and boat surveys
Migrating birds (flying birds)
• radar surveys • visual daytime observations
(migration, foraging) • acoustic night-time observations
Platform ship• ship surveillance radars• horizontal and vertical
Platform platform• more options, e.g. use of scopes,
pencil beam radar etc.
On site surveys
26.07.2013
6
Birds fly at night, many, all altitudes.
On site surveys
Radar studies: migration intensities
On site surveys
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
06-
08
06-
15
06-
22
06-
29
07-
06
07-
13
07-
20
07-
27
08-
03
08-
10
08-
17
08-
24
08-
31
09-
07
09-
14
09-
21
09-
28
10-
05
10-
12
10-
19
10-
26
11-
02
11-
09
11-
16
Individuals/h
Migration intensity in autumn '09 - All speciesPuttgarden - Land sector and sea transect
n = 380,432
6,324
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
02-
22
02-
27
03-
04
03-
09
03-
14
03-
19
03-
24
03-
29
04-
03
04-
08
04-
13
04-
18
04-
23
04-
28
05-
03
05-
08
05-
13
05-
18
05-
23
05-
28
06-
02
06-
07
Individuals/h
Migration intensity in spring '09 - All speciesPuttgarden - Land sector and sea transect
n = 185,347
26.07.2013
7
Radar studies: corrections of data, presentation of data
On site surveys
German initiatives (Ministry of Environment)
• Research platforms• test offshore wind-farm alpha-ventus• Program RAVE - Research at Alpha-VEntus
Research platforms FINO 1, 2 and 3
• radar• video• acoustics
26.07.2013
8
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
0 2 4 6 Kilometer
e.g. Denmark Horns Rev
Denmark North Sea
Platform shipsynchronous visual and radar observations
Post-construction studies
Altitude distribution < 1,500 m at night; low vs. intense migration
Nysted autumn '06 - night-time - range 1.5 km - 'screenshots'
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0-99
200-299
400-499
600-699
800-899
1000-1099
1200-1299
1400-1499
alt
itu
de
[m
]
proportion [%]
wf non-wf
n = 3.487
Nysted autumn '06 - night-time - range 1,5 km - 'screenshots'
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0-99
200-299
400-499
600-699
800-899
1000-1099
1200-1299
1400-1499
alt
itu
de
[m
]
proportion [%]
wf non-wf
n = 9.167
wf non-wf< 200 m 13,8 11,8< 500 m 23,1 21,6
wf non-wf< 200 m 1,0 1,8< 500 m 2,9 5,4
Proportions of birds in altitude bands
intensive migration
low migration
Post-construction studies
26.07.2013
9
Altitude distributions(+/- 1000 m)
Ducks –
avoid the wind farm area within rotor area
Gulls –
use wind farm area within rotor area
above rotor (>110m)
rotor area (30-110m)
below rotor (5-30m)
very low (<5m)
above rotor (>110m)
rotor area (30-110m)
below rotor (5-30m)
very low (<5m)
Post-construction studies
Thank you!
26.07.2013
10
Topics• displacement, barrier, collision• macro- and micro-avoidance
Post-construction studies
26.07.2013
11
Many migrating birds….
… many offshore wind farms
Reference – methods – post-construction
Air safety: b) 2 x red blinking on nacellea) 4 x obstruction lights (red,
permanent) on the mastc) 3 x blade tip red lights,
illuminated 60° before to 60°after the top height
a
b
Offshore wind mill with potential markings / lightings
Ship safety (a): - yellow shaft (15 m above sea level)- 3 x ID markings (letter size 1 m)- illumination of ID markings OR illuminated ID
- 5 nm lights (yellow, blinking) at each peripheral wind mill
cReference – methods – post-construction
7/26/2013
1
BOEM
February 26 – 28 2013
Pre –construction surveys
Strategic Environmental Assessment surveys.
Wide scale aerial surveys - DECC
Round 3 aerial surveys - The Crown Estate
7/26/2013
2
Pre –construction surveys
2 years of monthly baseline surveys as a minimum.
Boat-based or aerial (or both),
2 km buffer as a minimum,
BACI or BAG methods.
Pre and Post‐construction monitoring
Additional surveys can include:
Radio tracking breeding seabirds,
Radar studies for migrating species,
Land-based Vantage Point counts.
7/26/2013
3
Post‐construction monitoring
Post-construction monitoring is site specificbut has often be ‘more of the same’.
Monitoring requirements are specified in the licence,
Three years of post-construction monitoring,
Post‐construction monitoring
Specific studies have included:
Radar tracking studies on geese,
Migration studies,
7/26/2013
4
What has been learned
Importance of:
Robust survey design,
Clearly defined monitoring conditions,
Publication of final reports.
What has been learned
Significant displacement of red-throated divers (loons),
Very high avoidance rate by migrating pink-footed geese,
Possible secondary impacts on Terns.
7/26/2013
5
What has been learned
Barrier effects: Geese, gannets
Collision risk: Gulls and TernsGeese, gannets
Displacement: Red-throated diverAuks (?)
Secondary effects: Terns
7/26/2013
1
BOEM
February 26 – 28 2013
Session 2
What would you do differently?
Robust survey designs
Enforced licence conditions
Published results
7/26/2013
2
How have avian information needs changed over time
Good data on flight heights but poor data on avoidance behaviour
Improved understanding of displacement but poor understanding of effects.
How have avian information needs changed over time
Barrier effects appear not to be an issue
Cumulative impacts are becoming ever more critical.
BUT
7/26/2013
3
Mitigation
Most effective mitigation is to identify sensitive sites and avoid them!
Raising turbine height (not been tried yet)
1
Avian studies for offshore wind energy in The Netherlands
Sjoerd Dirksen
[email protected] @sjoerddirksen
580000 590000 600000 610000
5810000
5820000
5830000
5840000
4°40'0"E4°30'0"E4 ° 20'0"E 4 ° 10'0"E
52 ° 45'0"N
52 ° 40'0"N
52 ° 35'0"N
52 ° 30'0"N
20m isobath
Turbines
Metmast (OWEZ)
Trafo -station(PAWF)
580000 590000 600000 610000
5810000
5820000
5830000
5840000
4°40'0"E4°30'0"E4 ° 20'0"E 4 ° 10'0"E
52 ° 45'0"N
52 ° 40'0"N
52 ° 35'0"N
52 ° 30'0"N
20m isobath
Turbines
Metmast (OWEZ)
Trafo -station(PAW P)
Two wind farms so far:
OWEZ (36, 108 MW), demonstration site
PAWP (60 120 MW)
2
Pre- and post construction studies
Pre:
• seabird at sea counts, ship-based (ESAS methodology) in wider area (X years, Y censuses)
• radar and observer studies on flying birds (local and migrating) from distant platform (X years)
Post:
• seabird at sea counts, ship-based (ESAS methodology) including second wind farm and anchoring area (X years, Y censuses)
• radar and observer studies on flying birds (local and migrating) from metmast (X years)
Not (yet) possible:
• collision victim monitoring
Lessons learned
• disturbance / habitat use / displacementgood evidence for a range of species
• barrier effect / avoidance flying birdsgood evidence for a range of species
• patterns in fluxes and flight altitudesgood measurements and description
• collisionsno measurements, only flight behaviour/avoidance observations and modelling
• using population models, first steps on assessing cumulative impacts
3
Progress made, questions left
• collision rate and collision chancenot an immediate worry, but uncertainty too big for current North Sea plansinitiatives like UK JIP by The Crown Estate needed - this is bigger than individual windfarms
• cumulative impacts‘the holy grail of offshore wind energy - bird research’North Sea wide cooperation needed
No roads, only directions.....
1
Introduction
Prohibition of injury and/or killing of “specially protected species”
• harbour porpoise and pile driving• migrating birds (bats) and collision risk
Prohibition of significant disturbance of “strictly protected species”
• sea birds and offshore wind farms• harbour porpoise and pile driving
Research needs
Conclusions
Species Protection and Offshore Wind EnergyThe German Approach
German Federal Nature Conservation Act (2010)Article 44:
Provisions on specially protected and certain animal and plant species
(1) It is prohibited,
1. … to injure or kill wild living specimens of the specially protected species …,
2. to significantly disturb specimens of strictly protected species and of the European bird species during the period of breeding, rearing, moulting, hibernation and migration; a disturbance becomes significant in case it impairs the conservation status of the local population of the species concerned,
3. … to deteriorate or to destroy breeding sites or resting places of wild living specimens of the specially protected species,
4. …
Legal framework“Special Protection of Species”
(1) Specially Protected Species
e. g, cetaceans, seals, bats, European bird species, some fish species (lampreys, sturgeon, eel etc.), some invertebrates (lobster, sun star, edible sea urchin etc.)
(2) Strictly Protected Species
e. g., cetaceans, bats, European bird species, sturgeon, houting, sun star
2
Main migration routes crossing the Baltic Sea in autumn from: Bellebaum et al. 2008
Crane
Birds of prey
WaterfowlsSongbirds (night), waders Songbirds (day)
Prohibition of injury/killing Migrating birds and offshore wind farms
Prohibition of injury/killing Migrating birds and offshore wind farms
Possible means to prevent/minimise additional mortality: no (further) approvals of offshore wind farms within the
main migration routes shut-down the turbines in case of mass migration bird friendly lighting
Areas of special importance for migratory birds crossingthe German Baltic Sea and offshore wind farms(Dec 2005)
3
Prohibition of significant disturbance Diver and offshore wind farms
Red/Black-throated Diver (n =2.321)
Den
sity
aft
er c
on
stru
ctio
n [
%]
Distance [km]Distance [km]
habitat exclusion due to disturbance
complete avoidance of the wind farm + 2 km zone
long-lasting habitat loss
> 1% of population displaced → significant disturbance
Prohibition of significant disturbance Diver and offshore wind farms
Abundance
2/3 of the German spring population >15 % NW-European wintering population
Distribution of Red/Black-throated DiverSpring time (01.03. – 15.05.), 2000-2010
4
Prohibition of significant disturbance Diver and offshore wind farms
Abundance
Consensus of the German competent authorities:no further approvals of offshore wind farms within this main resting area of Red/Black-throated Diver
Distribution of Red/Black-throated DiverSpring time (01.03. – 15.05.), 2000-2010
Prohibition of significant disturbance Common Guillemot
Approach of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation:< 10 % of population displaced → no significant disturbance: species not in annex I of the Bird Directive in Europe favourable conservation status (Non-SPEC) in German North Sea < 1 % of the bio-geographic population
5
spatial und temporal distribution marine species
bird migration: routes and features
impact of under water noise on marine mammals, fishes
resting seabirds and species specific avoiding behaviour
migrating birds (bats) and collision risk
effects on population level
under water noise (propagation, attenuation)
cumulative and long-term impacts
development technical mitigation measures
Research Needs
Protection of species has to be species specific as well as pressure specific.
To implement threshold for pressure levels, acceptable habitat loss etc. should be assigned.
Suitable mitigation measures should be applied:
avoiding areas with high abundances of sensitive species;
avoiding areas of special importance for e.g., feeding, reproduction, migration corridors;
excluding disturbing activities in sensitive times (e.g., reproduction, lactation, spawning, high seasonal densities);
application of technical mitigation measures (e.g., noise reducing, switch off turning rotors, design of wind farm, bird friendly lightening);
… .
Conclusions
1
© Th. Merck
Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization:Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience
February 26-28, 2013, Herndorn, Virginia, USA
Development of Offshore Wind Energyand its Management in German Waters
Thomas Merck
German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Timeline for the Offshore Wind EnergyRealisation in Germany
The German Government wants to expand the installed capacity up to 25 GW until 2030.
Guiding principles (2002): Offshore wind energy should be used in an environmentally sound way.
Therefor, the development should be accompanied by research on the environmental impacts.
The development should follow a step-wise approach to enable the usage of growing environmental knowledge.
Phases Period Expected Capacity Potential Power Yield
1. Preparational Phase 2001 - 2003 0 -- MW 0 -- TWh p.a.
2. Initial Phase (firstconstruction phases)
2003/4 - 2006 at least 500 MW ca. 1,5 TWh p.a.
3. First Expansion Phase 2007 - 2010 2.000 - 3.000 MW ca. 7 - 10 TWh p.a.
4. Additional Expansion Phases
2011 - 2030 20.000 - 25.000 MW ca. 70 - 85 TWh p.a.
2
Offshore Wind Development in GermanyNorth Sea
Marine Facilities Ordinance (SeeAnlV)
Legal regulation for granting approvals
An approval has to be granted unless the project:
• is likely to impair the safety and efficiency of navigation
• poses a threat to the marine environment, in particular bird migration
• is opposed to preconditions of spatial planning or to other overriding public interests
Competent authority:
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH)
National Legal Framework for Wind Energy/German EEZ (I)
3
National Legal Framework/German EEZ (II)
Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG)
“Natura 2000” since 2002 national implementation EU-Habitat Directive
§ 30 Protection of biotopes (since 2010)
§ 44 Protection of specific species (since 2010)
Impact regulation under nature protection law (with respect to Offshore Wind Energy only from 2017 on)
Competent authorities:
• Federal Agency of Nature Conservation (BfN) for species protection and protection of biotopes
• Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) for appropriate assessment report/habitat directive assessment,impact regulation under nature protection law
Photos: © Arndt, Hüppop, Dinter, Graner, Tanneberger, Krause & Hübner,Fricke, Gessner
German Federal Nature Conservation Act (2010)Article 44:
Provisions on specially protected and certain animal and plant species
(1) It is prohibited,
1. … to injure or kill wild living specimens of the specially protected species …,
2. to significantly disturb specimens of strictly protected species and of the European bird species during the period of breeding, rearing, moulting, hibernation and migration; a disturbance becomes significant in case it impairs the conservation status of the local population of the species concerned,
3. … to deteriorate or to destroy breeding sites or resting places of wild living specimens of the specially protected species,
4. …
Legal framework“Special Protection of Species”
(1) Specially Protected Species
e. g, cetaceans, seals, bats, European bird species, some fish species (lampreys, sturgeon, eel etc.), some invertebrates (lobster, sun star, edible sea urchin etc.)
(2) Strictly Protected Species
e. g., cetaceans, bats, European bird species, sturgeon, houting, sun star
4
National Legal Framework/German EEZ (III)
Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) aims at increasing the share of renewable energy sources in
electricity supply
defines inter alia the tariff paid for electricity gained from offshore installations
no tariffs paid for electricity from offshore projects licensed after December 2004 within designated Marine Protected Areas
Regional Planning Act (ROG) purpose: resolving conflicts between different interests such as
shipping, fishing, use of wind energy and marine environmental protection
identifies suitable areas for the use of offshore wind energy excludes via the Marine Facilities Ordinance offshore wind
farms from marine protected areas
National Legal Framework for Wind Energy/German EEZ (IV)
Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG)• requires EIA for wind farm projects comprising more than 20 turbines
Standards for the Environmental Impact Assessment (StUK) standardize the scientific basis of the EIA required by the approval
authority
providing information to applicants on the scope of environmental investigations:
• investigation of the site specific abundance and distribution of various species groups and there temporal variability
• monitoring the impact of the construction, operationand decommissioning on these species
• forming the basis for assessing the suitability of the location and for identifying potential adverseimpacts of the planned offshore project
5
© Th. Merck
Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization:Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience
February 26-28, 2013, Herndorn, Virginia, USA
Development of Offshore Wind Energyand its Management in German Waters
Thank you for your attention!
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
1
AARHUSUNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF BIOSCIENCEBOEM 26. FEBRUARY 2013
Effects of offshore wind farms on birds
Ib Krag Petersen, Anthony D. Fox, Mark Desholm, Johnny Kahlert and Thomas K. Christensen
Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityDenmark
AARHUSUNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF BIOSCIENCEBOEM 26. FEBRUARY 2013
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
2
AARHUSUNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF BIOSCIENCEBOEM 26. FEBRUARY 2013
The legislative framework
European Union Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessments(known as the EIA Directive) applies to assessment of the environmental effects of major development projects.
European Union Directive (2001/42/EC) on Strategic Environmental Assessments
(known as the SEA Directive) applies to environment impacts of implementation of major plans and programmes, including assessments of alternative solutions.
UNI
How do we assess how a development will affect the birds?1. Which are the key species?
2. Which are the key hazards the development presents to these?
3. How can we assess the impact of these hazards pre-construction?
Fox et al. 2006 Ibis 148: 129-144.
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
3
UNI
1. Which are the key species?A. Those which enjoy special protection measures
B. Those for which the area is important at some stage in the life cycle
C. Those which are vulnerable to windfarms in some way
D. Those that exhibit high annual adult survival and low reproductive output
UNI
2. Quantifying the hazards
A. The barrier effect
B. Displacement from ideal feeding distribution
C. Collision mortality
Fox et al. 2006 Ibis 148: 129-144.
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
4
UNI
VISUAL STIMULUS –AVOIDANCE RESPONSE
PHYSICAL HABITAT LOSS/MODIFICATION
COLLISION MORTALITY
Barriers to movement (migration,
feeding flights, etc.)
Displacement from ideal
feeding distribution
Destruction of feeding
habitat under foundations/
anti-scourstructures
Creation of novel habitats
on foundationsanti-scourstructures
Birds collide with rotors or other structures, or
mortally injured by air turbulence
Increased flight distances
“Effective”habitat loss
Enhanced energy
consumption
Reduced energy intake rates and/or increased
energy expenditure
Changes to annual breeding
output and survival
“Physical” habitat loss
“Physical” habitat gain
Changes to overall population
size
Reduced survival
Hazard factor
Physical effects
Ecological effects
Energetic costs
Fitness consequences
Population impacts
Enhanced energy intake rates and/or decreased
energy expenditure
Defining the problem
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsA. Barrier effects
1. Birds avoid flying in the vicinity of windfarms and incur enhanced energy costs
2. Use radar (in combination with visual and other confirmatory observations) to compare pre-construction trajectories with those post-construction
Desholm et al. 2006 Ibis 148: 76-89.
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
5
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsA. Barrier effects (migration)
Nysted migrating waterbirds mainly Eiders
Desholm & Kahlert 2005 Biology Letters 1: 296-298.
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsA. Barrier effects (migration)
Nysted migrating waterbirds mainly Eiders
Masden et al. (2009) ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 746-753.
Pre-construction
Post-construction
Difference
Additional average 500 m on a migration route of 1000 km energetically trivial
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
6
UNI
3. What were the impacts?A. Barrier effects
• Responses highly species specific, but most species avoided wind farms
• Most showed gradual avoidance at long distance, others more dramatic deflections <1 km from outermost turbines
• c.75% of bird radar tracks heading for both wind farms at 1.5-2 km avoided going through them, at night birds flew at great heights
• Mean additional flight distance was 500 m, so energetically trivial for 1000 km migrants
• More of a problem for commuting birds, although effects differed greatly between species (due to foraging ecology, energetics etc.)
• Bayesian models can use avoidance data to inform upon wind farm design configurations to minimise effects
UNI
133,000 Common ScotersAt Horns Rev
Partenavia P-68 Observer
3. Assessing the impactsB. Displacement
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
7
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsB. Displacement
Petersen et al. (2006) available via http://www.ens.dk/sw42149.asp
A. Pre-constructionB. Post-construction
Red-throated Divers have very rarely been seen between the turbines since construction
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsB. Displacement
Common Scoter avoided the vicinity of the wind farms for the first five years post construction, but subsequently occur between turbines at the same densities as outside
Petersen & Fox (2007) available at http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/file/Horns-Rev-Habitat-Changes_11336653.pdf
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
8
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsB. Displacement
Long-tailed duck has a restricted distribution in Danish waters
0 50 10025 Kilometers
Legend
Density0.00 - 0.71
0.72 - 2.38
2.39 - 4.95
4.96 - 8.83
8.84 - 14.35
14.36 - 21.85
21.86 - 32.96
32.97 - 51.99
52.00 - 119.23
119.24 - 272.28
–
Petersen et al. (2006) available at http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/FR606.pdf
UNI
3. Assessing the impactsB. Displacement
… but at the Nysted site, Long-tailed duck showed significant reductions in density post construction compared to pre-construction
Petersen et al. (2011) available at http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/2008.
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
9
UNI
3. What were the impacts?B. Displacement
• Most species were too infrequent to detect effects or showed none, but responses highly species specific
• Red-throated Divers avoided windfarm areas almost completely
• Common Scoter showed initial avoidance, but no displacement 5 years after construction
• Long-tailed Ducks consistently exhibited lower densities in the windfarm than outside post construction
• No bird species increased in waters within the two Danish offshore wind farms
UNI
3. What were the impacts?B. Displacement
• For species considered here, that proportion was small and therefore likely of little biological consequence
• Additional effects of many more such wind farms may, however, constitute a more significant effect
• Measurement of such cumulative effects is a high priority when considering the effects of many such developments along an avian flyway in the future
10-ECTS candidate course in Wildlife Ecology and Management, spring 2009 National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
10
UNI
3. Summing up
Effective habitat loss was caused by behavioural displacement, but at Horns Rev/Nysted was highly species specific and not biologically significant
Flying birds avoided both wind farms at a variety of levels; those entering between turbines showed clear behavioural changes minimised collision risk
Collision risk modelling suggested very low levels of collisions amongst the Common Eiders at Nysted, confirmed by direct observations
UNI
3. Summing upMore emphasis on Strategic Impact Assessment to zone developments to avoid early unnecessary conflicts and minimise impacts at individual project level
We need to invest in new modelling approaches to guide wind farm design (with regard to the geometric placing of individual turbines) to avoid barrier effects
All our reports, results and outputs can be accessed at:
http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/UndergrundOgForsyning/VedvarendeEnergi/Vindkraft/Havvindmoeller/Miljoepaavirkninger/Sider/Forside.aspx
7/26/2013
1
BOEM’s Avian Offshore Program
Avian Breakout SessionFebruary 26, 2013
David Bigger, Ph.D.Avian Biologist
Office of Renewable Energy ProgramsBureau of Ocean Energy Management
1
Research Efforts
Technology development
Compiling survey information
Identifying vulnerable avian species
Mapping avian distribution and abundance
Estimating number of surveys needed
Identifying migration routes
2
7/26/2013
2
Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species
Surveying for Marine Birds in the Northwest Atlantic
3
Predictive Modeling of Seabirds in the Mid-Atlantic
(Avian Compendium Phase II)
Collaboration between USGS and NOAA: Brian Kinlan (NOAA), Chris Caldow (NOAA), Allan O’Connell (USGS), Mark Wimer (USGS)
Project started Fall 2011, maps available early 2013
BOEM-funded collaboration between USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and NOAA NCCOS. Goals:
• Develop predictive spatial models of long-term average patterns of seabird abundance and occurrence in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
• Validate products and characterize uncertainty
• Provide useful map products to support offshore wind siting and environmental assessment
7/26/2013
3
6
7/26/2013
4
Statistical analyses to support guidelines for marine avian sampling
Statistical analyses to support guidelines for marine avian sampling
Brian Kinlan (NOAA)Elise F. Zipkin (USGS)
Allan F. O’Connell (USGS)Allison Sussman (USGS)
Mark Wimer (USGS)Chris Caldow (NOAA)
Brian Kinlan (NOAA)Elise F. Zipkin (USGS)
Allan F. O’Connell (USGS)Allison Sussman (USGS)
Mark Wimer (USGS)Chris Caldow (NOAA)
NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS)
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Report to BOEM—October 26, 2012
Special thanks to our NOAA Hollings Scholar, Diana Rypkema (Cornell University)
7/26/2013
5
Model fit Power Analysis
Model selectionPower curves
Power Maps & Significance tests
Guidelines for Avian Survey Information
Survey plan should aim to: Identify species using the project site
Establish a pre-construction baseline
Reduce uncertainty in the baseline
Develop an approach to quantify substantial changes in distribution and abundance
Pre-survey meetings
Reporting
Survey methodologies10
7/26/2013
6
Learn from the European Experience
Overview of studies conducted
Experience and hindsight
Planning and siting criteria
Monitoring
Data and data collection
11
7/26/2013
1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Conserving America’s Trust Resources
Migratory Bird Program
Conserving America’s Birds
The Migratory Bird Program is responsible for maintaining healthy migratory bird populations for the
benefit of the American people
7/26/2013
2
Migratory Bird Program
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Domestic statute that implements four international treaties for the protection of shared birds
• The take of 1 bird, at any time, by any means, in any manner is a violation of the law, without a permit
• Does not expressly authorize “unintentional take”
• It is important for project proponents to work with the Service to proactively find ways to avoid take
Migratory Bird Program
Conserving America’s Birds
• Population Monitoring, Assessment and Management
• Habitat Conservation
• Permits and Regulations
• Consultation
• Communication and Outreach
7/26/2013
3
Migratory Bird Program
Offshore Energy Interests
• Ensure the development of offshore energy in a manner that avoids or minimizes risk to birds
• Properly direct offshore energy siting in areas of low marine bird use
• Responsibility relates to Atlantic & Pacific Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes
• Direct Effects- Collision risk – what makes a species vulnerable?
- Effects of habitat modification/ “creation”
- Effects of barriers on species movements
• Indirect Effects- Effects on behavior, including changes in energetics
- Disturbance and displacement
Assessing Effects
Challenges in the Face of Uncertainty
7/26/2013
4
Challenges in the Face of Uncertainty
• Species distribution and abundance- Through the entire annual-cycle
• Habitat relationships- Why are species found where they are?
• Assessing methods through new technology
Improving Baseline Data
PartnershipsThe Power of Collaboration
• Offshore environment is challenging
• We know less about it – lack of baseline
• It is very dynamic – changes can be rapid
• Requires input from many- Federal Partners
- State partners
- Academic Institutions
- Conservation Groups
7/26/2013
5
PartnershipsAvian Information and GIS Database
• A database housing historic seabird data is being developed1. Collect, evaluate, standardize, and summarize
existing data sets
2. Use the seabird data to model seabird occurrence using physical, chemical, and biological variables
3. Compile seabird data into spatial database
Partnerships
Broad Scale Seabird Surveys Maine to North Carolina
• Five year project – (2009-2014)
• Use of “ships of opportunity” to study annual variability of seabird abundance
• Time-series methods to evaluate bird/plankton co-occurrence used
7/26/2013
6
Partnerships
Diving Bird Study
• Two year study to assess fine-scale occurrence and local movement patterns
• Red-throated Loon, Surf Scoter, Northern Gannet
• Result in detailed maps of movement patterns and distribution of birds in winter
Partnerships
• 2008 – present – aerial offshore transects1. Provide estimates of wintering seabird abundance
2. Information on regional distributions and critical areas for marine birds
• Covers Atlantic Coast – Florida to Maine
• Transects perpendicular to coast to 30 m contour
Sea Duck and AMAPPS Marine Bird Surveys
7/26/2013
7
Lessons Learned from European Experience
• Insight into pitfalls and panacea- What worked and what didn’t?
• Ideas on how to create a consistent approach to offshore energy development
• Ways to ensure that pre- and post-construction assessments are linked together
• Technology that benefitted the process
What we hope to gain from this week
Specific Questions
• What effects are being documented?- What has the time frame for detecting effects? Timelag?
• What data are needed to evaluate these effects?
• What is the geographic scale we should be collecting baseline data?
Based on what has been learned in Europe
7/26/2013
8
Specific Questions
• What data was not collected that should have been?
• What data was collected that you would not collect again?
• What is the value of post-construction monitoring?
Based on what has been learned in Europe
7/26/2013
1
High‐resolution Digital Aerial Imaging Marine
Wildlife Surveys
A Magical Panacea
Caleb Gordon, Ph. D.Principal Ornithologist, Normandeau Associates
A Technological Revolution Born in Europe…
Pioneering European Research on High Resolution Imaging Applications for Offshore Wind‐Wildlife Studies
•Thaxter, C. B. and Burton, N. H. K. 2009. High Definition Imagery for Surveying Seabirds and Marine Mammals: A Review of Recent Trials and Development of Protocols. British Trust for Ornithology Report Commissioned by Cowrie Ltd.
•Burt, M. L., Rexstad, E. and S. T. Buckland. 2009. Comparison of visual and digital aerial survey results of avian abundance for Round 3, Norfolk Region. COWRIE Ltd.
•Rexstad, E. and Buckland, S. T. 2009. Comparison of aerial survey methods for estimating abundance of common scoters. CREEM technical report 2009‐1.
•Buckland, S. T., Burt, M. L., Rexstad, E. A., Mellor, M., Williams, A. E. and Woodward, R. 2012. Aerial surveys of seabirds: the advent of digital methods. Journal of Applied Ecology doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2664.2012.02150.x
7/26/2013
2
…And Brought to the U.S. for Testing
•Aerial High‐Resolution Imaging Pilot Study, BOEM contract M10PC00099 to Normandeau Associates•Objective
Determine optimal technology and methodology for conducting high‐resolution aerial ocean wildlife surveys in the U.S.
• Birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles• Evaluation criteria: Cost, Effectiveness, Safety
•ScopeConduct pilot studies, evaluate and make recommendations on technology and methodology, develop large area survey protocol
•Key PartnersBoulder Imaging AIS observersIA tech, Inc. (unmanned aircraft) ECOES, inc.Gemini Renewables Pinnacle 1 AviationBritish Trust for Ornithology
Integration of the Imaging System, Raleigh, NC April, 2011
7/26/2013
3
Camera windshield and mount
“Op house” Experiments, May 10‐20, 2011 off of Oak Island, NC
Imaging Survey Routes
Experimental DesignTreatmentFactor
Treatments
Aircraft Twin‐enginemanned fixed wing
UnmannedAerial Vehicle
Resolution 1 cm 1.5 cm 2 cm 2.5 cm 3 cm
Camera Type
Area Scan Line Scan
LightPolarization
With Without
Angle 00 150 440
Altitude 1200m 1000m 850m 600m 450m
Gyroscopic Stabilization
With Without
7/26/2013
4
“Control” Surveys
• Visual Observer Plane (also Cessna 337)• Four observers on board (one bird, one mammal/turtle observer on each side)• 150 m flight altitude • 125 mph flight speed• trailed experimental imaging flights, same transects• gathered animal and met data
• Visual Observer Boat (40 ft fishing vessel)• Four observers on board (one bird, one mammal/turtle observer on each side)• ca 16 knots, depending on weather• gathered animal and met data• displaced transects plus chumming
Image Analysis
• 9 TB imagery reviewed
• 236,349 images
• 4,465 animals found•3163 birds•77 sea turtles•37 marine mammals•1188 fish
• 0 technicians blinded
7/26/2013
5
Loggerhead Sea Turtle, 600m height, 1.5 cm resolution
Royal Tern, 600m camera altitude, 1.5cm resolution
7/26/2013
6
American Oystercatchers, 600m camera altitude, 1.5cm resolution
Immature Northern Gannet, 1000m camera altitude, 2.5cm resolution
7/26/2013
7
Magnificent Frigatebird 433m camera altitude, 1.5cm resolution
Immature Brown Pelican433m camera altitude, 1.5cm resolution
7/26/2013
8
Probable Audubon’s Shearwater425m camera altitude, 1.5cm resolution
Wilson’s Storm Petrel450m camera altitude, 1.0cm resolution
7/26/2013
9
Platform Transect duration
No of days Total cost incl. crew
Comments
boat 41 hrs 2 mins
7 $12,600
plane 6 hrs 14 mins
7 $5,445 out and back time 0.5 hrs
Cost: Planes are cheaper than boatsCost comparison of transect surveys of single commercial project‐sized marine area with different survey vehicles (platforms). Data from BOEM contract M10PC00099 to Normandeau
Safety: Flying higher is safer
Flight Altitude (m
)
Normal flight altitudes for high‐resolution imaging survey flights: 450‐1000m
Normal flight altitudes for visual observer survey flights: 50‐150m
7/26/2013
10
Effectiveness: Digital Surveys Generate Pre‐observer Data
• Advantages of having a permanent, pre‐observer data archive
• Control/reduce observer effects• Control for variability among observers in
•detection distances• ID skill• Search image (taxon‐specific detection rates)
• Eliminate Observer “swamping”
• Enable post‐hoc data qa/qc, cross checking and validation of results
Effectiveness: Density Counts not Affected by Observer Swamping
7/26/2013
11
Effectiveness: Density Counts not Affected by Attraction/Repulsion Effects
Survey Type Birds Turtles Cetaceans
Digital 0.383 0.182 0.018
Visual (plane) 0.143 0.043 0.004
Visual (boat) 0.948 0.019 0.933
Mean estimated animal densities (animals/km2) during “op house” transect surveys
Effectiveness: Density Counts not Affected by Imprecise Distance Estimates
?
?? ?
Survey Swath Calculated Precisely
• Survey Swath Estimated from Detection Distance Estimates
• Varies by observer and by taxon
Digital Survey Visual Survey
7/26/2013
12
Effectiveness: ID aided by morphometrics
Wing Chord (cm)
Body Length (cm)
Tail Length (cm)
Bill Length (cm)
Royal Tern 35.7-38.2 45-50 14-17 6.2-6.5
Caspian Tern 37.4-43.3 48-56 12-15.2 6-7
Sandwich Tern 28.0-31.1 34-45 11.7-13.7 4.7-5.7
Common Tern 26.2-27.1 31-37 14.8-15 3.6-3.8
Forster’s Tern 25.8-27.2 33-36 16-19.3 3.5-4.2
Roseate Tern 22.8-23.2 33-41 17.5-18.5 3-3.9
Arctic Tern 25.4-28.5 33-39 7.2-12.6 2.8-3.8
Least Tern 15.3-18.0 22-24 6-8 2.4-3.2
Bird in figure 26 36 14.4 3.6
Effectiveness: ID strengthened by multi‐observer cross‐checking, validation
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
All Combined 1.5cm 2.5cm 3cm
Agreement Rate
Resolution
Multiple Pictures
Single Picture
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Combined 1.5cm 2.5cm 3cm
Identification Rate
Resolution
7/26/2013
13
Not a Panacea: Inherent Limitations of High Resolution Imaging
• Good coverage of space, bad coverage of time (like any survey technique)
• Poor coverage of ephemeral, transitory phenomena, e.g. Migrations
Not a Panacea: Inherent Limitations of High Resolution Imaging
• Good coverage of space, bad coverage of time (like any survey technique)
• Poor coverage of ephemeral, transitory phenomena, e.g. Migrations
• Identification of animals to species level from images is not always possible
• Identification to species groups may be the only option for some taxa (e.g. some gulls, terns, alcids, female sea ducks)
7/26/2013
14
Not a Panacea: Inherent Limitations of High Resolution Imaging
• Good coverage of space, bad coverage of time (like any survey technique)
• Poor coverage of ephemeral, transitory phenomena, e.g. Migrations
• Identification of animals to species level from images is not always possible
• Identification to species groups may be the only option for some taxa (e.g. some gulls, terns, alcids, female sea ducks)
• Highly technical staff, equipment, software are necessary
• Fancy cameras, mounts, and automated image processing are essential
Not a Panacea: Inherent Limitations of High Resolution Imaging
• Good coverage of space, bad coverage of time (like any survey technique)
• Poor coverage of ephemeral, transitory phenomena, e.g. Migrations
• Identification of animals to species level from images is not always possible
• Identification to species groups may be the only option for some taxa (e.g. some gulls, terns, alcids, female sea ducks)
• Highly technical staff, equipment, software are necessary
• Fancy cameras, mounts, and automated image processing are essential
• Unclear whether precise and accurate bird flight altitude data are achievable
7/26/2013
15
Summary: Not magical, but digital surveys likely to replace conventional
• Cost: Digital aerial survey cheaper than boat‐based, comparable to other aerial surveys. Some expensive pieces are required.
Summary: Not magical, but digital surveys likely to replace conventional
• Cost: Digital aerial survey cheaper than boat‐based, comparable to other aerial surveys. Some expensive pieces are required.
• Safety: Digital surveys safer than conventional aerial surveys. Any marine survey carries some risk.
7/26/2013
16
Summary: Not magical, but digital surveys likely to replace conventional
• Cost: Digital aerial survey cheaper than boat‐based, comparable to other aerial surveys. Some expensive pieces are required.
• Safety: Digital surveys safer than conventional aerial surveys. Any marine survey carries some risk.
• Effectiveness: Digital survey data are generally superior to visual observer survey data
• Pre‐observer data archive to reduce and quantify observer effects, enable data qa/qc• No observer “swamping” effects• ID not instantaneous, based on measurements and reference materials• Animals not repelled from, or attracted to survey vehicle• Survey swath measured precisely, not visually estimated
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), 433m camera altitude, 1.5cm resolution
Thanks for your attention!
Appendix E
Benthic Breakout Session Presentations
APPENDIX TO SECTION 3.0
Biographies of European Invitees
Martin Attrill, PhD – Director of Marine Institute at Plymouth University Professor Martin Attrill is a marine ecologist whose primary research interest is focused on
the mechanisms behind long-term change and large-scale spatial patterns in marine assemblages and populations. He has been working with long-term data from marine fish and invertebrate populations within a range of habitats such as the Thames Estuary, Brazilian coral reefs and the open Atlantic Ocean, including investigating the role of climate variation on fish, corals and plankton. He has published over 100 papers in the prime literature, primarily on fish and benthic systems such as seagrass, and has also current projects investigating the roles of Marine Protected Areas, such as the new Defra designation in Lyme Bay; he coordinates the Lyme Bay Monitoring Programme. He has extended his interest in human impacts to large scale offshore renewable developments and how we can effectively and suitably monitor their interaction with the environment, coordinating biodiversity projects within the Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy. His team has published three leading reviews on the subject and he has been asked to provide overview presentations at a range of venues, including the United Nations. Since May 2009, Prof Attrill has been Director of the Marine Institute at Plymouth University, a multidisciplinary organisation comprising over 180 academic staff working in marine and maritime areas, 250 researchers and PhD students and 2600 students enrolled on marine and maritime courses.
Arjen Boon, PhD – Senior Researcher at Deltares Arjen Boon Ph.D. is a senior researcher in the unit Marine and Coastal Systems of Deltares.
He is a marine benthic/pelagic process and system ecologist with a 20 year professional background in fundamental (NIOZ) and applied marine ecological research (IMARES, Deltares) and consulting (Haskoning). He also has well-developed skills in consulting for marine policy, ecosystem impact and risk assessments, and especially in scientific integration and evaluation. In the past 10 years, he has been involved in impact assessments, spatial planning, research and scientific evaluation of offshore wind farms in the Netherlands. At Deltares he is scientific coordinator and evaluator of the Dutch research and monitoring program on the ecological effects of offshore wind farms. Within these projects, his main responsibility is as scientific coordinator and integrator, and his special focus is in the field of benthic and system ecology. He is also project manager of and a specialist in scientific integration and evaluation of a large (20 million m3) experimental shoreface nourishment project on the Holland Coast. His main scientific interests revolve around connectivity issues (transport and recruitment) of meroplankton, and the macro-ecological aspects of (physical forcing of) benthic productivity and diversity. He works closely with the Netherland Institute for Sea Research.
Bryony Pearce – Director of Gardline Caledonia Bryony Pearce, is a Director of Gardline Caledonia Ltd, and has been working as a marine
environmental consultant for more than eleven years. Over the course of her career Bryony has carried out environmental impact assessment work for the marine aggregate extraction industry,
major port developments and offshore renewable energy developments throughout the UK. Bryony has also been involved in broad spectrum of applied marine research including impact and recovery studies, marine mapping, fisheries sustainability, marine planning, design criteria for marine protected areas, goods and services provided by marine ecosystems, marine taxonomy and genetic barcoding. Bryony has secured funding for and led over 20 research projects and has an in-depth understanding of the UK marine environment and how it is influenced by anthropogenic activities. Bryony is currently writing up her PhD on the Ecology of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs with the University of Plymouth and Plymouth Marine Laboratories. Much of Bryony’s PhD research has already been applied to the effective management of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs in the UK and she continues to work closely with the conservation agencies to ensure management decisions are based on the best available science.
Tom Wilding, PhD – Senior Scientist at Scottish Marine Institute Tom is a marine ecologist, biometrician and diver with about 20 years of experience latterly
specializing in offshore structures and aquaculture impacts. Tom managed the ground-breaking Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef project which required lengthy pre-deployment site characterization, stakeholder liaison, materials testing and negotiation with regulators /industry ahead of deploying Europe’s largest artificial reef. The Lock Linnhe Artificial Reef contains 36 modules, 4000 concrete blocks (similar to scour protection in offshore developments), which allows for replication, and facilitates research into the impacts of offshore structures. Over the last five years Tom has developed novel methods for assessing the benthic impacts occurring around aquaculture operations and the societal/policy implications of offshore renewables. Tom is currently supervising two PhD students who are looking at productivity on offshore structures and the consequences of macroalgal biofuel extraction. Tom designed and oversaw benthic site-characterization surveys at a possible offshore wind site, in 2012, and is currently designing and running simulations to assess and optimize benthic sampling strategies.
7/26/2013
1
Prof Martin J AttrillProfile and Interests
Director, Marine Institute
Plymouth University UK
[email protected]; @mjattrill
BSc, PhD Marine Biology (Univ Liverpool)
25 years practising marine ecologist since PhD (20 years Plymouth University)
Director of Marine Institute since 2009
Focus: patterns of marine biodiversity in time and space and how human activity influences those patterns
Habitat: primarily benthic ecology and fish
>100 peer review papers; 35 PhD students
Background
7/26/2013
2
First and largest such university Institute in UK
180 academics; 250+ researchers; 2600 students
Highly multidisciplinary: All Marine Sciences, Engineering, Technology, Navigation, Policy, Shipping, Business, Law, Psychology, Sports, Arts
Broadest Portfolio in Europe?
Strong theme of Marine Renewable Energy
Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy (PRIMaRE) with University of Exeter
Plymouth University Marine Institute
MSc Marine Renewable Energy
First Marine Renewables masters course in the UK
7/26/2013
3
Research Interests
Impact of Marine Protected Areas and Renewable Energy developments on seabed communities
Developed new High Definition Flying Array technology to allow cost‐effective, non‐destructive and robust sampling of seabed
(copies available)
Marine Renewables Impact
Used technology to characterise seabed at rocky/mixed sites
Wave Hub
Jersey Tidal Stream
Assessing impact over range of diverse studies
7/26/2013
4
Wider interests in broad impact of MRE on biodiversity
Lead biodiversity impacts team within PRIMaRE
Three major published reviews, one mainly using offshore wind evidence
Produced key briefing for Friends of the Earth
(copies available)
Main interest: costs/benefits of adding hard structure to
the marine environment
Historic loss of hard substratum due to commercial fishing
20,000 km2 native oyster bed in southern North Sea
Last harvested 1936
No oysters present by 1970
Lost ecosystem function
Much soft sediment bottom is not natural?
7/26/2013
5
Underwater piles/anchoring provides artificial reef habitat
Increases production and diversity of locality
Horns Rev – 60x increase in available food biomass in wind farm area
Increase in fish populations at Wind Farm (Wilhelmssonet al 2006)
Main interest: costs/benefits of adding hard structure to
the marine environmentMussels colonising monopile
Physical structure can boost fisheries populations
Langhamer & Wilhelmsson(2009) – wave energy foundations
Edible crabs boosted if holes provided
Can environmentally enhance engineering structures for fishery gain
Provision of physical habitat – fishery boost?
7/26/2013
6
Can MRE developments act as de factoMarine Protected Areas?
Other maritime activity, esp. towed fishing, difficult or impossible within renewable energy arrays
Some evidence energy farms boosting, or concentrating, biodiversity
Shift in emphasis of “impact” of renewable energy developments (Punt et al 2009)
Before trawling After trawling
Thank you…and looking forward to interesting discussions
Plymouth Hoe
26 juli 2013
1
Offshore wind farms in the southern North Sea – Habtitat mapping and effects on macrozoobenthos
Dr. Arjen Boon
Special thanks to
Drs. Gerard Duineveld & Magda Bergman, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, The Netherlands
DELTARES – discipline clusters
26 juli 2013
2
Arjen Boon – research experience and interests
- Ph.D. in process ecology (benthic-pelagic coupling)
- Experience in fish(eries) biology
- 10 – 15 years EIA, Appropriate Assessments OWF
- Project leader monitoring and research programs coastal zone nourishment, restoration projects
- Scientific and policy integration national and EU projects
- Setting up, co-ordinating and evaluating research and monitoring plans North Sea
Sand EngineHydro- & morphodynamics, Ecology
26 juli 2013
3
Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee
Masterplan Research Ecological Effects Offshore WindReview and Knowledge AdvancementScour effectsBenthos effects
North Sea system
Overview of data sets on bathymetry, chemistry, biology
26 juli 2013
4
North Sea system – benthic mapping
Benthic mapping withmultibeam sonar –high resolution
North Sea system – Sediment map
Aggregated sediment map North Sea - based on modified Wentworthclassification
EUNIS – level 3 classification Marine habitats
26 juli 2013
5
North Sea system – Habitat characterization in MESH
Coupling sediment characteristics withmacrozoobenthos data
Adaptation to EUNIS –level 3
http://www.searchmesh.net/
North Sea system – benthic mapping
Sampling stations benthos (Reiss et al. 2007)
26 juli 2013
6
North Sea system – benthic mapping
Clusters macrobenthos 1986 (left) and 2000 (right). Kröncke et al. 2011
North Sea system – valuation – Natura2000
Distribution of Ocean quahog – long lived species (>100 y) (Lindeboom et al. 2008)
26 juli 2013
7
North Sea system – valuation – Natura2000
Areas with high benthicdiversity (Lavaleye 2000)
Areas under protection EU Habitat Directive and nationallaw
North Sea system – OWF effect studies
• increasing key macrobenthic species in this area.
• community is evolving away from the original Nephtys cirrosa community
• far from reaching a stable equilibrium
• decreasing median grain size and increasing macrobenthic abundance and diversity
• the community might possibly be moving towards a variant of the rich Abra alba – Mysella bidentatacommunity
Belgium: Coates et al. 2012
26 juli 2013
8
North Sea system – OWF effect studies
Netherlands – Bergman et al. 2012
High level of beam trawl fishing
OWF would release benthos from fishing pressure
North Sea system – OWF effect studies
Sampling design 2007 and2011. R1 and R6 weresampled in T0
26 juli 2013
9
North Sea system – OWF effect studies
MDS plot abundance (n/m2) Macrobenthos boxcore data 2011
North Sea system – OWF effect studies
MDS plot abundance (n/m2) Macrobenthos sledge data 2011
26 juli 2013
10
North Sea system – Assessment Framework
- Regulatory framework – know what to measure and why tomeasure it: spatial planning, site screening & selection
- Ecological indicators and goals – thresholds to separate the “good” from the “bad”
- Adopt an evidence-based approach, avoid unrealistic worst-cases, accept risks, but identify them!
- Adopt a system approach – try to understand in stead of simplymonitor
- Prepare for cumulative impacts, multiple use from the start on
North Sea system – Offshore wind farms present
26 juli 2013
11
North Sea system – Offshore wind farms planned – high end scenario
North Sea system OWF effects on benthos
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Bryony Pearce, Gardline Caledonia
BOEM Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterisation -a UK Perspective
• The largest independently owned marine survey group
• Global Group with companies in Australia, Singapore, Brazil and the US (Alpine)
• Offshore renewables services include;• Environmental • Geotechnical • Geophysical • Oceanographic • Hydrographic • Crew Transfer and Training
More information can be downloaded from http://www.gardlinemarinesciences.com/services/sector-4/
The Gardline Group
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
• Completed in excess of 150 contracts for offshore wind developers across the UK and Europe
• Provided EIA services for 9 of the 7 Round III wind farm sites in the UK
UK Renewables Experience
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
• Degree in Marine Biology from the University of Plymouth
• Part-time PhD on The Ecology of Sabellaria spinulosa Reefs
• Over eleven years’ experience working as Marine Environmental Consultant
• Environmental Impact Assessment work including baseline surveys and monitoring programmes for a variety of offshore developments
• Applied marine research• Impacts of aggregate extraction on benthic communities• Food-web interactions• Seabed mapping and classification• Marine planning and conservation• Fisheries sustainability
Background & Research Interests
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Site Characterisation
EIA (including monitoring plans)
Pre-Construction(baseline) survey
License Approval
Ongoing Monitoring & Assessment
StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment
Post-ConstructionSurvey
Restoration
Decommissioning
EnvironmentalImpactAssessment & MonitoringFramework(UK)
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Thanet Offshore Windfarm
Covering 35 km2 of the seabed
300 Mega Watts of Power
Provide 200,000 homes with clean energy
100 Turbines
Turbines installed on monopile foundations
Approximately 500m apart along rows and 800m between rows
Second Largest operational wind farm in Europe
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Site Characterisation / Baseline 2005Pre-Construction 2007Post-Construction Monitoring 2012
Remote Observations
+
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
www.gardline.comGround truthing revealed Sabellaria spinulosa reef
Shifting Baselines2005-2007
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Trawl Damage
Extensive Trawl Scars
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Reef Effect2007-2012
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
2007 2012
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Impact of Scour
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Applied Marine ResearchImpacts & Recovery
http://www.genustraithandbook.org.uk/
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Applied Marine ResearchSeabed Mapping
• Regional Environmental Characterisation (RECs) http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/alsf/projects/rec-projects.aspx
• Habitat Suitability Modeling
• Biotope Classification Schemes
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Applied Marine ResearchBiodiversity Offsetting
• Habitat Restoration• Transplanting biogenic reefs
• Habitat Re-creation• Shellfish bed restoration
• Habitat Creation• Artificial reef
• Averted Risk• Exclusion of fishing• Eradication of introduced species
• Preservation• Seal colony / seabird protection schemes
www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
Bryony PearceDirector
Gardline Caledonia Ltd
69 Buchanan Street
Glasgow
G1 3HL
7/26/2013
1
Tom Wilding
www.sams.ac.uk
BOEM Workshop –benthic habitat.26 Feb 2013
Scottish Association for Marine Science
• SAMS is an independent research facility
• Delivers the ‘Marine Science’ degree as part of the UHI
• ~130 staff
• Some core funding, mostly PI grant capture
• SAMS is an academic institution (metric = research papers)
• SAMS Research Services Limited (SRSL) – commercial ‘wing’ (metric = commercial contracts)
• SRSL deliver baseline surveys for offshore renewables
7/26/2013
2
SAMS/SRSL and offshore renewables• Drop‐down video
survey
• Mammal surveys
• Diver surveys
• Underwater experimentation
• Acoustic imaging
• Soundscapes
• Major offshore wind (and wave/tide) resource
• Tiree and Islay developments in planning stage – baseline characterisation,
– stakeholder consultation
• SAMS involved (including wave/tide)– Mammals, fish, intertidal
– Benthos and
– Social /policy implications
• SAMS = hosts the Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef facility
SAMS
Scotland
7/26/2013
3
Personal interests regards offshore renewables
• Reef effects
• Survey optimisation (monitoring methodologies)
• Logical questions
• Power analysis
Not necessarily in that order. These issues are largely inter‐related.
Loch Linnhe Reef
The Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef• Europe’s largest experimental reef (at construction)
• 36 modules, each of > 4000 concrete blocks• Structure similar to scour protectionPurpose: to facilitate research into the impacts of offshore structures • Formed the basis of numerous research‐theses and papers (Google Scholar ‘Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef’).
7/26/2013
4
Reef‐research synopsis
• Measuring habitat complexity underwater [1]
• Assessing macrobenthic near‐reef impacts [2]
• Interactions with current regime [3,4]
• Productivity on offshore structures (PhD student, on‐going)
• Stakeholder perceptions of offshore renewables [5‐7]
• Currently advising on a amenity (diving) reef (4000 tonne frigate in the Sound of Mull)
7/26/2013
5
Monitoring methodologies
• Develop cost‐effective ‘drop‐and‐drift’ video technology (including statistical analysis) appropriate for ‘point’ impacts (used around fish‐ and mussel‐farms)[8,9]
• Key is to ask logical questions.
On asking fundamental questions…
Often regulator asks questions like:
• Is there an impact?
• How far does it extend?
Easy to ask and answer –but relatively meaningless
Difficult to formulate question, but meaningful if answered
More useful questions could include:
• Who cares, about what, and how much?
• How much change is OK? (id thresholds)
• How confident do you want to be in assessing change in X?
• What are you going to do if change in X is deemed unacceptable?
7/26/2013
6
Investigating change – numerical simulations
Sampling simulations
• Estimating this difference is a function of sampling effort, initial density and effect size
7/26/2013
7
Power analysis
Effect size = 2i.e. doubling ofdensity
Effect size = 1.5
Scottish experience (so far)• Developers wish to minimise expenditure
• Benthic impacts are viewed as ‘low‐risk’ = low priority by regulators (or their advisors)
• Baseline monitoring programme is developed/negotiated between regulator, developer and surveyor.
• Main focus on ‘priority marine features’ & red‐list species
• Thresholds (effect sizes) are not specified
• But sampling effort is specified (based on ‘reasonable’ costs to the industry)
• Little known about the effect size that the imposed sampling regime could find
• No mandatory remedial action in terms of benthos (no threshold definition)
7/26/2013
8
1. Wilding TA, Rose CA, Downie MJ (2007) A novel approach to measuring subtidal habitat complexity. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 353: 279‐286.2. Wilding TA (2006) The benthic impacts of the Loch Linnhe artificial reef. Hydrobiologia 555: 345 ‐ 353.3. Mills FS (2009) Sedimentation patterns around Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef. Heriot‐Watt University, MSc Thesis. 4. Aston Z (2006) Modelling and Measuring Water Motion on the Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef ‐ (i) Potential Biological Effects and (ii) Implications for Coastal Hydrodynamics [MRes thesis]: University of Newcastle. 109 p.5. Alexander KA, Janssen R, Arciniegas G, O'Higgins TG, Eikelboom T, and Wilding, TA. (2012) Interactive Marine Spatial Planning: Siting Tidal Energy Arrays around the Mull of Kintyre. Plos One 7: e30031.6. Alexander KA, Potts T, Wilding TA (In press) Marine renewable energy and Scottish west coast fishers: exploring impacts, opportunities and potential mitigation. Ocean & Coastal Management.7. Alexander KA, Wilding TA, Heymans JSS (2013) Attitudes of Scottish fishers' towards marine renewable energy. Marine Policy 37: 239 ‐ 244.8. Wilding TA, Nickell TDN (Accepted) Changes in benthos associated with Mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) Farms on the West‐Coast of Scotland. PLOS ONE.9. Wilding TA, Cromey CJ, Nickell TD, Hughes DJ (2012) Salmon farm impacts on muddy‐sediment megabenthic assemblages on the west coast of Scotland. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2: 145‐156.
References
Thanks for listening Priority marine feature: Modiolus modiolus
7/26/2013
1
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Offshore Wind Workshop 2013Benthic Habitat Track
Brian Hooker
Biologist, BOEM
February 26, 2013
Overview
• BOEM and Environmental Impacts
• BOEM’s Goals for Workshop
• Status of Benthic Studies to Date
• BOEM’s Benthic Habitat Survey Guidelines
• Comments and Questions
7/26/2013
2
Stages of Development
Identifying Wind Energy Areas
Task Force Consultation → Public Notice & Comment
Identifying Wind Energy Areas
Task Force Consultation → Public Notice & Comment
Leasing: Notice → Environmental Assessment → Issuance
Leasing: Notice → Environmental Assessment → Issuance
Site Assessment Plan (Surveys)
Site Assessment Plan (Surveys)
Construction & Operations Plan
EIS
Construction & Operations Plan
EIS
BOEM’s Obligations
• BOEM has statutory obligations to “protect the environment.” – Energy Policy Act of 2005 and consult with NMFS regarding impacts to essential fish habitat.
• BOEM thus requires geophysical and biological data in order to approve a lessee's plan. Including:– Identification of sensitive bottom habitats
– Fish and shellfish populations
7/26/2013
3
BOEM’s Objectives
• Learn about the vulnerability of various habitat types to change from offshore wind turbine foundations.
• Learn about successful habitat classification systems and how that data is collected.
• Learn about model-based approaches to predicting habitat types and vulnerability to change from turbine foundations.
7/26/2013
4
7/26/2013
5
7/26/2013
6
Studies:Biological
– Most biological studies to date have concentrated on endangered species surveys
– Large scale benthic studies of the middle shelf have not been done in earnest in decades.
– BOEM has completed data synthesis reports and recently completed studies to identify environmental survey and monitoring protocols as well as modeling recommendations.
– BOEM has just released benthic survey guidelines
– BOEM is looking forward now to doing WEA-scale benthic habitat surveys
Questions?Comments?
Appendix F
Archaeology
APPENDIX TO SECTION 4.0
Biographies of European Invitees
Paul Baggaley, Wessex Archaeology Dr Paul Baggaley is the Head of GeoServices at Wessex Archaeology where he leads the
geophysics, geoarchaeology and geomatics teams. Paul has a B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Geophysics (Edinburgh, Birmingham and KeeleUniversities, respectively) and joined Wessex Archaeology in 2003. After leaving academia Paul worked as a geophysicist for a marine survey company and was based in both the UK and the US before undertaking his role at Wessex. Over the last ten years Paul has worked as a specialist in marine cultural heritage on over 100 offshore developments. His portfolio includes over 30 offshore wind farm schemes, multiple marine aggregate dredging applications and port developments, as well as various cable installations and research projects investigating both submerged landscapes and historic wreck sites. Through these projects Paul has been involved in various stages of works ranging from the acquisition and interpretation of marine geophysical data (including that acquired by marine survey companies) for environmental assessments and as part of monitoring mitigation strategies. Paul has contributed to the Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector, the Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis and the forthcoming Marine Geophysics Data Acquisition, Processing and Interpretation Guidance Notes. Paul is also a committee member for the European branch of the Offshore Site Investigation Group of the Society of Underwater Technology which provides a technical forum for the offshore industry.
Jonathan Benjamin, Wessex Archaeology Dr Jonathan Benjamin is the International & Research Partnerships Manager at WA Coastal
& Marine (Wessex Archaeology’s Scottish Branch Office). Jonathan has a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of California, Los Angeles and a Ph.D. in Archaeology from the University of Edinburgh. His research has focused on coastal and underwater archaeology, early prehistory and the study of submerged landscapes. As an experienced archaeological diver Jonathan has worked on submerged sites the UK, Denmark, Slovenia, Croatia, Cyprus, and Israel. He was the principal editor and co-author of Submerged Prehistory (2011) and has published in a number of leading international journals. He is also a member of the SPLASHCOS community, funded through the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. Jonathan joined Wessex Archaeology in 2010 and has a leading role in the WA Coastal & Marine Team in Scotland. He is the Principal Investigator on Project SAMPHIRE, working collaboratively with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and HistoricMonuments of Scotland to conduct underwater and aerial surveys of Scotland’s coasts and seas. Jonathan also advises commercial clients and his portfolio includes the management of archaeological Environmental Impact Assessments for UK Round 3 Wind, European and UK Offshore wind test facility sites. Jonathan remains an honorary member of staff in History, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh.
JørgenDencker, The VikingShipMuseum JørgenDencker has been working with the location and excavation of submerged Stone Age
settlements for the past 36 years and has since the early 1990s been involved in the developing field of marine archaeology and off shore wind farms (most of them being the biggest in the world at the time they were built) as well as all other kinds of off shore construction work. He has played a significant role in the negotiations with the construction companies involved as well as the Cultural Heritage Agency always pushing for and optimizing the demands for geophysical survey of the total area being affected, the choice of geophysical instruments to be used and a sufficiently small line spacing to get enough data for reconstruction of paleo landscapes and pin pointing the most potential areas for submerged Stone Age settlements. The many years of experience in this field and cooperation between marine archaeologists and the off shore industry have resulted in the location of the deepest as well as the oldest submerged Stone Age settlements in Denmark.
Michael Faught, Panamerican Consultants Maritime Division Michael Faught is a Senior Maritime Archaeologist with Panamerican Consultants Maritime
Division and a notorious, practiced, and published proponent of submerged pre-contact sites underwater archaeology. Faught's dissertation from the University of Arizona described successful predictive modeling, survey, and excavation experiences in the Big Bend of Florida, after finding submerged Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Middle Archaic sites offshore. After an assistant professor experience at FSU teaching and conducting historic shipwreck and pre-contact underwater archaeology projects, Faught turned to the private sector where he has for a long time considered the cutting edge of this kind of research would take place. Faught has been principle investigator on several CRM reports with submerged pre-contact components from Florida to New Jersey; he is familiar with the recent Atlantic OCS study produced by BOEM, and he has written a book chapter out soon on protocols for background predictive modeling (qualitative), survey and remote sensing methods for site discovery and target identification, and testing for submerged pre-contact sites. Faught is looking forward to listening to and learning from our European colleagues on issues of Cultural Resources and wind energy infrastructure construction and monitoring.
Antony Firth, Fjordr Ltd. Dr. Antony Firth, MIfA, is the Director of Fjordr Ltd., which is a company specialising in
marine and historic environment consultancy. Early in his career, Antony combined academic training in political science, sea-use law and management with practical diving-based fieldwork on both submerged prehistoric sites and shipwrecks. Antony subsequently worked for Wessex Archaeology initially as a Project Manager and then as Head of Coastal and Marine, building one of the most capable specialist teams in this sector. From 2001 onwards, Antony was able to bring to the emerging offshore wind sector his experience from work on the environmental assessment of other forms of major marine development, especially ports and marine aggregate dredging, and from land-based archaeology. With his team he was involved in the majority of offshore wind farm developments in the UK, including several of the major ‘Round 3’ developments. Antony carried out much of the drafting of Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector (Jan 2007) and initiated the Offshore Renewable Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries (ORPAD) and the Model Clauses for Archaeological Written
Schemes of Investigation (Dec 2010). He is currently preparing Historic Environment Guidance for Wave and Tidal Energy.
Christopher Pater, English Heritage Christopher Pater joined English Heritage (an independent public body) in 2005 and provides
advice about how the historic environment might be affected by coastal and seabed development projects as required by UK and European law. Our advice to inform major developments such as offshore wind farms, port infrastructure and marine minerals dredging has enabled him to work with UK government departments, industry and others on the development of guidance and to commission research projects to examine possible impacts. Chris now also works closely on the delivery of UK legislation and published policy that enables the preparation of marine plans and reforms procedures for consenting seabed development. He has a Master’s degree in Marine Resource Management from Heriot-WattUniversity (Edinburgh) and his Doctoral research was conducted at the University of Nottingham. Chris is also a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society.
Kieran Westley, University of Ulster
Kieran Westley is a Research Associate at the Centre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Ulster (UK) and has over 10 years’ experience in the field of maritime archaeology. His current research focuses on the investigation and reconstruction of submerged prehistoric landscapes using geophysical, geotechnical and archaeological techniques. He also has wider interest in the use of geophysical techniques for mapping and identifying shipwrecks. In addition to academic work, he has previously undertaken archaeological impact assessments (on both shipwrecks and submerged landscapes) for offshore developments. As part of his present role, he is consulted by the Northern Ireland government’s Department of Environment on the cultural/archaeological impacts of proposed coastal and marine projects (including offshore renewable energy) submitted under Marine Licensing legislation.
The Department of the Interior Mission
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has
responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This
includes fostering the sound use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish,
wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our
national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through
outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and
works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by
encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also
has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people
who live in island communities.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the exploration
and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that appropriately
balances economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection
through oil and gas leases, renewable energy development and environmental reviews
and studies.
www.boem.gov